scholarly journals War and post-truth: Moral equality of combatants and inculpable ignorance in just war theory

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 111-122
Author(s):  
Dragan Stanar
Keyword(s):  
Moral Status ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

This paper aims to explain the effect of the post-truth on revisionism in Just War Theory. Revisionism in JWT is based on the claim that Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello cannot be separated and that only combatants who fight on the just side are morally justified in killing. Presupposition of this argument is that combatants can and ought to know the moral status of their side. This paper will demonstrate that it is impossible to demand combatants to know whether their side is just by investigating the implications of post-truth in modern conflicts. By demonstrating the practical impossibility of combatants to know whether their side is just, author will show that the assumption of inculpable ignorance in war must remain the essence of JWT. Posttruth phenomenon only fortifies the necessity of separating Jus ad Bellum from Jus in Bello and upholding the principle of moral equality of combatants in contemporary wars.

scholarly journals Contemporary Issues in Jus in Bello: Some Problems Raised by Jeff McMahan's Killing in War

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Simon William Bunckenburg
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Jeff Mcmahan ◽  
Intentional Attack ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

<p>The work of Jeff McMahan has revitalised discussion of just war theory with its rejection of the moral equality of combatants. The main aim of this thesis is to explore and develop McMahan’s work and recent challenges to it. I do this in four chapters. First, I outline McMahan’s account of liability to attack which subsequently shows why the moral equality of combatants is false. I defend his account of liability to attack from problems raised by Yitzhak Benbaji and Thomas Hurka. Second, I discuss developments by McMahan to the in bello condition of proportionality. I suggest that the features McMahan introduces, though innovative, do not go far enough and ultimately argue for David Rodin’s multi-factor account. Third, I defend Seth Lazar’s responsibility dilemma from objections by McMahan and Bradley Strawser. Fourth, I combine McMahan’s understanding of responsibility with Tony Honoré’s outcome responsibility and after establishing an account of collective responsibility argue that unjust noncombatants can be liable to intentional attack due to being collectively outcome responsible for the threat their state poses in war.</p>

scholarly journals Contemporary Issues in Jus in Bello: Some Problems Raised by Jeff McMahan's Killing in War

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Simon William Bunckenburg
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Jeff Mcmahan ◽  
Intentional Attack ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

<p>The work of Jeff McMahan has revitalised discussion of just war theory with its rejection of the moral equality of combatants. The main aim of this thesis is to explore and develop McMahan’s work and recent challenges to it. I do this in four chapters. First, I outline McMahan’s account of liability to attack which subsequently shows why the moral equality of combatants is false. I defend his account of liability to attack from problems raised by Yitzhak Benbaji and Thomas Hurka. Second, I discuss developments by McMahan to the in bello condition of proportionality. I suggest that the features McMahan introduces, though innovative, do not go far enough and ultimately argue for David Rodin’s multi-factor account. Third, I defend Seth Lazar’s responsibility dilemma from objections by McMahan and Bradley Strawser. Fourth, I combine McMahan’s understanding of responsibility with Tony Honoré’s outcome responsibility and after establishing an account of collective responsibility argue that unjust noncombatants can be liable to intentional attack due to being collectively outcome responsible for the threat their state poses in war.</p>

scholarly journals Defeating Ignorance – Ius ad Bellum Heuristics for Modern Professional Soldiers

Diametros ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Maciej Marek Zając
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Deployment ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Invincible Ignorance ◽  
Practical Recommendations ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

Just War Theory debates discussing the principle of the Moral Equality of Combatants (MEC) involve the notion of Invincible Ignorance; the claim that warfi ghters are morally excused for participating in an unjust war because of their epistemic limitations. Conditions of military deployment may indeed lead to genuinely insurmountable epistemic limitations. In other cases, these may be overcome. This paper provides a preliminary sketch of heuristics designed to allow a combatant to judge whether or not his war is just. It delineates the sets of relevant facts uncontroversially accessible and inaccessible to contemporary professional soldiers. Relevant facts outside these two sets should by default be treated as inaccessible until proven otherwise. Even such a rudimentary heuristic created in this way demonstrates that practical recommendations of MEC-renouncing Just War Theory are not too challenging to follow and still signifi cantly impact a compliant combatant’s behavior.

Aggression and the symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Kalmanovitz
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Hard Choice ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Causes Of War ◽  
Widespread View

Recent scholarship in just war theory has challenged the principle of symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This revisionist work, which is increasingly dominating the field of contemporary war ethics, rejects the idea that the rules of conduct of war (jus in bello) should be agnostic about the justice of the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum). Just wars are perceived to be inherently at odds with the principle of symmetrical application of IHL, which appears to create a hard choice between justice and legality. I show that this challenge to IHL is misplaced. It derives from a widespread view among just war theorists according to which only one side in a just war can be justified in using force. By looking closely at the nature of adjudication of just causes of war, I show that there can be cases of war in which both sides are justified in using force, and cases in which, though not objectively justified, both sides may be excused for fighting. On the basis of this understanding of jus ad bellum, I argue that the principle of symmetrical application of IHL in fact best reflects the uncertainty and complexity that should characterize the practical doctrine of jus ad bellum.

Extremism and Confusion in American Views about the Ethics of War: A Comment on Sagan and Valentino

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff McMahan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
The Law ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

AbstractIn their article “Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants,” Scott Sagan and Benjamin Valentino have revealed a wealth of information about the views of contemporary Americans on the ethics of war. Virtually all they have discovered is surprising and much of it is alarming. My commentary in this symposium seeks mainly to extract a bit more from their data and to draw a few further inferences. Among the striking features of Sagan and Valentino's data are that the views of Americans tend to cluster at the extreme ends of the spectrum of possible views about the ethics of war, that an apparent sympathy for pacifism coexists with harshly punitive views about the treatment of soldiers, and that few of those surveyed appear to have given any thought to the implications of the views they expressed for what it might be permissible for enemies of the United States to do to captured American soldiers. The commentary concludes by arguing that Sagan and Valentino's findings do not, as they argue, support the fear that is sometimes expressed that a wider acceptance of revisionist just war theory, and in particular its incorporation into the law, would make the practice of war even more barbarous than it already is.

scholarly journals Το ζήτημα του πολέμου στο φιλοσοφικό στοχασμό και στην ιστορική πραγματικότητα

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ιωάννης Σταμούλος
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

Το διδακτορικό αρθρώνεται σε τρία μέρη. Στο πρώτο, αναλύσαμε την έννοια του πολέμου ως προς τον ορισμό, τις μορφές, και τα αίτια. Στο δεύτερο μέρος της διατριβής, καταγράψαμε τις απόψεις ειδημόνων και φιλοσόφων σχετικά με τον πόλεμο. Επικεντρωθήκαμε ιδιαίτερα στις αντιλήψεις τους που συνέβαλαν εξελικτικά στη διαμόρφωση της Θεωρίας περί Δικαίου Πολέμου (Just War Theory), η οποία περιλαμβάνει τα κριτήρια που καθιστούν έναν πόλεμο δίκαιο (Jus ad Bellum), κι εκείνα που αφορούν στη δεοντολογική διεξαγωγή του (Jus in Bello). Στο τρίτο μέρος, αναλύσαμε και συγκρίναμε τέσσερις διαφορετικές εποχές, κι από τη μεταξύ τους σύγκριση επιχειρήσαμε μ’ ένα ιστορικό-φιλοσοφικό πρίσμα να καταλήξουμε σε μια θέση, η οποία εκτιμάται ότι, κατά το μάλλον ή ήττον, θα έχει βάση, επειδή επιβεβαιώνεται διαχρονικά και διατοπικά. Προσπαθήσαμε να εντοπίσουμε τις σταθερές που διέπουν την ανθρώπινη δράση, ώστε να διαβλέψουμε την εξέλιξη των γεγονότων ή, τουλάχιστον, να έχουμε ένα μέτρο αξιολόγησης του παρόντος. Εργαλείο της έρευνας έγινε ο φιλοσοφικός λόγος, και αποσκοπούμε στην αναβίωση των κλασικών φιλοσοφικών κειμένων, για να αντλήσουμε από την πλούσια φιλοσοφική παρακαταθήκη του παρελθόντος σκέψεις που θα μας επιτρέψουν να κατανοήσουμε και να ερμηνεύσουμε τα ανθρώπινα δρώμενα διαχρονικά. Στο διδακτορικό προστίθεται ένα παράρτημα με πολεμικές μαρτυρίες, από τις οποίες επιχειρήσαμε να αναδείξουμε την ανθρώπινη ψυχοσύνθεση και συμπεριφορά στο πεδίο της μάχης. Το δεύτερο παράρτημα περιελάμβανε τις απόψεις για τον πόλεμο προσώπων από το χώρο της τέχνης, τα οποία με τις ευαισθησίες τους δίνουν έναν ιδιαίτερο τόνο στο κείμενο.

scholarly journals The Deontological and Consequentialist Principles of Jihad and the Just War Theory in Indonesian Context: A Critical Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Najamudin Najamudin
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

Tradisi perang berbasis keadilan dapat ditemukan dalam sejarah pemikiran politik Islam pada masa awal khalifah Islam. Dalam kajian ini, penulis menggunakan dua pisau analisis yaitu interpretasi tekstual terhadap Alquran dan Hadis, dan interpretasi sejarah perang suci dalam tradisi Islam. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menggali prinsip-prinsip dasar jihad, dan membandingkannya dengan teori perang berbasis keadilan untuk menemukan sisi persamaan dan perbedaanya, serta membangun argumentasi apakah jihad bisa dikategorikan sebagai bentuk perang yang memenuhi rasa keadilan masyarakat yang tertindas. Studi kasus dalam kajian ini adalah konsepsi jihad Imam Samudra dalam buku kontroversialnya “Aku Melawan Teroris”. Dengan menggunakan analisa Jus Ad Bellum dan Jus In Bello, ditemukan bahwa apabila jihad dipandang sebagai sesuatu yang sakral dan suci, maka kesucian jihad tidak bisa dikotori dengan tindakan terorisme. Dalam perspektif teologi dan hukum Islam, penelitian ini membuktikan penyalahgunaan ayat-ayat jihad oleh Imam Samudra untuk menjastifikasi tindakan terorisme yang dilakukannya di Bali.

scholarly journals Just war theory in Njegos’s works

2021 ◽  
pp. 361-375
Author(s):  
Dragan Stanar
Keyword(s):  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Just War ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Context Specific

Modern just war theory represents more of a tradition of thoughts on ethical issues of war than a theory per se. However, philosophical attitudes on war coming from authors from non-western cultures, including Serbian culture, are often left outside of this tradition. Author aims to demonstrate that there are clear ideas on ethical attributes of war and warring in Njegos?s work. By analyzing Njegos?s views expressed in his most significant works, through the prism of criteria of the classical elements of the modern just war theory (Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello), author demonstrates the existence of Serbian tradition of thought on ethics of war and warring. In this way, modern just war theory is supplemented and enriched with the Serbian historical perspective on justness of war and in war. Simultaneously, author highlights the challenges and perils of interpretation of philosophical ideas without considering the historical context, specific political-culturological circumstances and personality of the idea author. This is of a particular contemporary relevance, as misinterpretations of Njegos?s ideas on war and justice in war are often used to further fuel national antagonisms and destabilize the region.

Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott D. Sagan ◽  
Benjamin A. Valentino
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Just Cause ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
Just War Doctrine ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

AbstractTraditional just war doctrine holds that political leaders are morally responsible for the decision to initiate war, while individual soldiers should be judged solely by their conduct in war. According to this view, soldiers fighting in an unjust war of aggression and soldiers on the opposing side seeking to defend their country are morally equal as long as each obeys the rules of combat. Revisionist scholars, however, maintain that soldiers who fight for an unjust cause bear at least some responsibility for advancing an immoral end, even if they otherwise fight ethically. This article examines the attitudes of the American public regarding the moral equality of combatants. Utilizing an original survey experiment, we find that the public's moral reasoning is generally more consistent with that of the revisionists than with traditional just war theory. Americans in our study judged soldiers who participate in unjust wars as less ethical than soldiers in just wars, even when their battlefield conduct is identical, and a large proportion supported harsh punishments for soldiers simply for participating in unjust wars. We also find, however, that much of the American public is willing to extend the moral license of just cause significantly further than revisionist scholars advocate: half of the Americans in our survey were willing to allow an unambiguous war crime—a massacre of innocent women and children—to go unpunished when the act was committed by soldiers fighting for a just cause. Our findings suggest that incorporation of revisionist principles into the laws of war would reinforce dangerous moral intuitions encouraging the killing of civilians.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document