Results for 'Just War Theory'

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Evaluating the Revisionist Critique of Just War Theory.Seth Lazar - 2017 - Daedalus 146 (1):113-124.
    Modern analytical just war theory starts with Michael Walzer's defense of key tenets of the laws of war in his Just and Unjust Wars. Walzer advocates noncombatant immunity, proportionality, and combatant equality: combatants in war must target only combatants; unintentional harms that they inflict on noncombatants must be proportionate to the military objective secured; and combatants who abide by these principles fight permissibly, regardless of their aims. In recent years, the revisionist school of just war (...), led by Jeff McMahan, has radically undermined Walzer's defense of these principles. This essay situates Walzer's and the revisionists’ arguments, before illustrating the disturbing vision of the morality of war that results from revisionist premises. It concludes by showing how broadly Walzerian conclusions can be defended using more reliable foundations. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2. Putting the War Back in Just War Theory: A Critique of Examples.Rigstad Mark - 2017 - Ethical Perspectives 24 (1):123-144.
    Analytic just war theorists often attempt to construct ideal theories of military justice on the basis of intuitions about imaginary and sometimes outlandish examples, often taken from non-military contexts. This article argues for a sharp curtailment of this method and defends, instead, an empirically and historically informed approach to the ethical scrutiny of armed conflicts. After critically reviewing general philosophical reasons for being sceptical of the moral-theoretic value of imaginary hypotheticals, the article turns to some of the special problems (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Just War Theory, Legitimate Authority, and Irregular Belligerency.Jonathan Parry - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (1):175-196.
    Since its earliest incarnations, just war theory has included the requirement that war must be initiated and waged by a legitimate authority. However, while recent years have witnessed a remarkable resurgence in interest in just war theory, the authority criterion is largely absent from contemporary discussions. In this paper I aim to show that this is an oversight worth rectifying, by arguing that the authority criterion plays a much more important role within just war theorising (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  4. Assembling an Army: Considerations for Just War Theory.Nathan P. Stout - 2016 - Journal of Global Ethics 12 (2):204-221.
    ABSTRACTThe aim of this paper is to draw attention to an issue which has been largely overlooked in contemporary just war theory – namely the impact that the conditions under which an army is assembled are liable to have on the judgments that are made with respect to traditional principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. I argue that the way in which an army is assembled can significantly alter judgments regarding the justice of a war. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Non-Culpable Ignorance and Just War Theory.Jovan Babic - 2007 - Filozofija I Društvo 18 (3):59-68.
    The so called ′non-culpable ignorance′ is an instrument to justify participating in a war on a defeated side, on condition that fighters sincerely believe that they are defending a just cause and had some valid reasons to believe in having a chance to win. Within the just war theory this instrument is needed to make both sides prima facie right, otherwise the theory would imply that those who lose are guilty in advance, especially if they are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6. War & Ethics: A New Just War Theory[REVIEW]Joshua Finnell - 2008 - Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought 3 (1).
    In War & Ethics, Nicholas Fotion undertakes three main tasks. The first is critical: to analyze ‘Just War Theory’ (JWT) in the evolving context of modern warfare between nations and non-nation groups, using various case studies to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. The second task is modification: to construct a new Just War Theory to incorporate wars between nations (JWT-Regular) and wars between nations and non-nation groups (JWT-Irregular). The third and final task (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Just War Theory: Revisionists Vs Traditionalists.Seth Lazar - 2017 - Annual Review of Political Science 20:37-54.
    Contemporary just war theory is divided into two broad camps: revisionists and traditionalists. Traditionalists seek to provide moral foundations for something close to current international law, and in particular the laws of armed conflict. Although they propose improvements, they do so cautiously. Revisionists argue that international law is at best a pragmatic fiction—it lacks deeper moral foundations. In this article, I present the contemporary history of analytical just war theory, from the origins of contemporary traditionalist (...) war theory in Michael Walzer's work to the revisionist critique of Walzer and the subsequent revival of traditionalism. I discuss central questions of methodology, as well as consider the morality of resorting to war and the morality of conduct in war. I show that although the revisionists exposed philosophical shortcomings in Walzer's arguments, their radical conclusions should prompt us not to reject the broad contemporary consensus, but instead to seek better arguments to underpin it. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8. A Challenge to the Reigning Theory of the Just War.Christian Barry - 2011 - International Affairs 87 (2):457-466.
    Troubled times often gives rise to great art that reflects those troubles. So too with political theory. The greatest work of twentieth century political theory, John Rawls's A theory of justice, was inspired in various respects by extreme social and economic inequality, racialized slavery and racial segregation in the United States. Arguably the most influential work of political theory since Rawls—Michael Walzer's Just and unjust wars—a sustained and historically informed reflection on the morality of interstate (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. The South African Student/Worker Uprisings in Light of Just War Theory.Thaddeus Metz - 2016 - In Susan Booysen (ed.), FeesMustFall: Student Revolt, Decolonisation and Governance in South Africa. Wits University Press. pp. 292-308.
    I critically examine the South African university student and worker protests of 2015/2016 in light of moral principles governing the use of force that are largely uncontested in both the contemporary Western and African philosophies of just war, violence and threats. Amongst these principles are: “discrimination”, according to which force should be directed not towards innocent bystanders but instead should target those particularly responsible for injustice; “likely success”, meaning that, instead of being counter-productive, the use of force must be (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. Just War and Robots’ Killings.Thomas W. Simpson & Vincent C. Müller - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 66 (263):302-22.
    May lethal autonomous weapons systems—‘killer robots ’—be used in war? The majority of writers argue against their use, and those who have argued in favour have done so on a consequentialist basis. We defend the moral permissibility of killer robots, but on the basis of the non-aggregative structure of right assumed by Just War theory. This is necessary because the most important argument against killer robots, the responsibility trilemma proposed by Rob Sparrow, makes the same assumptions. We show (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  11.  87
    The Indispensable Mental Element of Justification and the Failure of Purely Objectivist (Mostly “Revisionist”) Just War Theories.Uwe Steinhoff - 2020 - Zeitschrift Für Ethik Und Moralphilosophie (1):51-67.
    The “right intention” requirement, in the form of a requirement that the agent must have a justified true belief that the mind-independent conditions of the justification to use force are fulfilled, is not an additional criterion, but one that constrains the interpretation of the other criteria. Without it, the only possible interpretation of the mind-independent criteria is purely objectivist, that is, purely fact-relative. Pure objectivism condemns self-defense and just war theory to irrelevance since it cannot provide proper action (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. Review Article: Just War Theory and Peace Studies. [REVIEW]Edmund F. Byrne - 2009 - Teaching Philosophy 32 (3):297-304.
    Scholarly critiques of the just war tradition have grown in number and sophistication in recent years to the point that available publications now provide the basis for a more philosophically challenging Peace Studies course. Focusing on just a few works published in the past several years, this review explores how professional philosophers are reclaiming the terrain long dominated by the approach of political scientist Michael Walzer. On center stage are British philosopher David Rodin’s critique of the self-defensejustification for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  13. What's A Just War Theorist?Aleksandar Jokic - 2012 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 4 (2):91-114.
    The article provides an account of the unlikely revival of the medieval Just War Theory, due in large part to the efforts of Michael Walzer. Its purpose is to address the question: What is a just war theorist? By exploring contrasts between scholarly activity and forms of international activism, the paper argues that just war theorists appear to be just war criminals, both on the count of aiding and abetting aggression and on the count of (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  14.  31
    Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the Twenty‐First Century. [REVIEW]Jonathan Parry - 2015 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (2):220-222.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  88
    Dubik J M Just War Reconsidered: Strategy, Ethics, and Theory[REVIEW]Edmund Byrne - 2017 - Michigan War Studies Review 2017 (044).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. Liability, Community, and Just Conduct in War.Jonathan Parry - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (12):3313-3333.
    Those of us who are not pacifists face an obvious challenge. Common-sense morality contains a stringent constraint on intentional killing, yet war involves homicide on a grand scale. If wars are to be morally justified, it needs be shown how this conflict can be reconciled. A major fault line running throughout the contemporary just war literature divides two approaches to attempting this reconciliation. On a ‘reductivist’ view, defended most prominently by Jeff McMahan, the conflict is largely illusory, since such (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. Just War, Citizens’ Responsibility, and Public Intellectuals.Christian Nadeau - forthcoming - Revue Internationale de Philosophie.
    To what extent do the moral principles of just war theory lend themselves to providing an account of the moral and political responsibility of citizens in general, and of public intellectuals in particular, in times of war? An analysis of Michael Walzer’s thought opens promising avenues for answering this question. It will be necessary, first of all, to re-examine the classic distinction between combatants and noncombatants – a thesis that Walzer defended but that several philosophers have criticized in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. Jus Ad Vim and the Just Use of Lethal Force Short of War.S. Brandt Ford - 2013 - In Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas Evans & Adam Henschke (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century. Routledge. pp. 63--75.
    In this chapter, I argue that the notion which Michael Walzer calls jus ad vim might improve the moral evaluation for using military lethal force in conflicts other than war, particularly those situations of conflict short-of-war. First, I describe his suggested approach to morally justifying the use of lethal force outside the context of war. I argue that Walzer’s jus ad vim is a broad concept that encapsulates a state’s mechanisms for exercising power short-of-war. I focus on his more narrow (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. Environmental Security and Just Causes for War.Juha Räikkä & Andrei Rodin - 2015 - Almanac: Discourses of Ethics 10 (1):47-54.
    This article asks whether a country that suffers from serious environmental problems caused by another country could have a just cause for a defensive war? Danish philosopher Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen has argued that under certain conditions extreme poverty may give a just cause for a country to defensive war, if that poverty is caused by other countries. This raises the question whether the victims of environmental damages could also have a similar right to self-defense. Although the article concerns justice (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Honor War Theory: Romance or Reality?Daniel Demetriou - 2013 - Philosophical Papers 42 (3):285 - 313.
    Just War Theory (JWT) replaced an older "warrior code," an approach to war that remains poorly understood and dismissively treated in the philosophical literature. This paper builds on recent work on honor to address these deficiencies. By providing a clear, systematic exposition of "Honor War Theory" (HWT), we can make sense of paradigm instances of warrior psychology and behavior, and understand the warrior code as the martial expression of a broader honor-based ethos that conceives of obligation in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21. Just War and Non-Combatants in the Private Military Industry.Paul Richard Daniels - 2015 - Journal of Military Ethics 14 (2):146-161.
    I argue that, according to Just War Theory, those who work as administrative personnel in the private military industry can be permissibly harmed while at work by enemy combatants. That is, for better or worse, a Just War theorist should consider all those who work as administrative personnel in the private military industry either: (i) individuals who may be permissibly restrained with lethal force while at work, or (ii) individuals who may be harmed by permissible attacks against (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22.  40
    Just War and the Indian Tradition: Arguments From the Battlefield.Shyam Ranganathan - 2019 - In Comparative Just War Theory: An Introduction to International Perspectives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 173-190.
    A famous Indian argument for jus ad bellum and jus in bello is presented in literary form in the Mahābhārata: it involves events and dynamics between moral conventionalists (who attempt to abide by ethical theories that give priority to the good) and moral parasites (who attempt to use moral convention as a weapon without any desire to conform to these expectations themselves). In this paper I follow the dialectic of this victimization of the conventionally moral by moral parasites to its (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Civil War and Revolution.Jonathan Parry - 2018 - In Seth Lazar & Helen Frowe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford, UK:
    The vast majority of work on the ethics of war focuses on traditional wars between states. In this chapter, I aim to show that this is an oversight worth rectifying. My strategy will be largely comparative, assessing whether certain claims often defended in discussions of interstate wars stand up in the context of civil conflicts, and whether there are principled moral differences between the two types of case. Firstly, I argue that thinking about intrastate wars can help us make progress (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  24.  27
    Defining War.Jessica Wolfendale - 2017 - In Michael Gross & Tamar Meisels (eds.), Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. pp. 16-32.
    In international law and just war theory, war is treated as normatively and legally unique. In the context of international law, war’s special status gives rise to a specific set of belligerent rights and duties, as well as a complex set of laws related to, among other things, the status of civilians, prisoners of war, trade and economic relationships, and humanitarian aid. In particular, belligerents are permitted to derogate from certain human rights obligations and to use lethal force (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. The Moral Equality of Modern Combatants and the Myth of Justified War.Uwe Steinhoff - 2012 - Theoretical and Applied Ethics 1 (4):35-44.
    In the tradition of just war theory two assumptions have been taken pretty much for granted: first, that there are quite a lot of justified wars, and second, that there is a moral inequality of combatants, that is, that combatants participating in a justified war may kill their enemy combatants participating in an unjustified war but not vice versa. I will argue that the first assumption is wrong and that therefore the second assumption is virtually irrelevant for reality. (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  26. Just Cause and 'Right Intention'.Uwe Steinhoff - 2014 - Journal of Military Ethics 13 (1):32-48.
    I argue that the criterion of just cause is not independent of proportionality and other valid jus ad bellum criteria. One cannot know whether there is a just cause without knowing whether the other (valid) criteria (apart from ‘right intention’) are satisfied. The advantage of this account is that it is applicable to all wars, even to wars where nobody will be killed or where the enemy has not committed a rights violation but can be justifiably warred against (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27. The Morality and Law of War.Seth Lazar - 2012 - In Andrei Marmor (ed.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Law. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. pp. 364-379.
    The revisionist critique of conventional just war theory has undoubtedly scored some important victories. Walzer’s elegantly unified defense of combatant legal equality and noncombatant immunity has been seriously undermined. This critical success has not, however, been matched by positive arguments, which when applied to the messy reality of war would deprive states and soldiers of the permission to fight wars that are plausibly thought to be justified. The appeal to law that is sought to resolve this objection by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  28. Rethinking Legitimate Authority.Anne Schwenkenbecher - 2013 - In Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas Evans & Adam Henschke (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century. Routledge.
    The just war-criterion of legitimate authority – as it is traditionally framed – restricts the right to wage war to state actors. However, agents engaged in violent conflicts are often sub-state or non-state actors. Former liberation movements and their leaders have in the past become internationally recognized as legitimate political forces and legitimate leaders. But what makes it appropriate to consider particular violent non-state actors to legitimate violent agents and others not? This article will examine four criteria, including ‘popular (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  29. Taking War Seriously.Charles Blattberg - 2019 - Philosophy 94 (1):139-60.
    Just war theory − as advanced by Michael Walzer, among others − fails to take war seriously enough. This is because it proposes that we regulate war with systematic rules that are comparable to those of a game. Three types of claims are advanced. The first is phenomenological: that the theory's abstract nature interferes with our judgment of what is, and should be, going on. The second is meta-ethical: that the theory's rules are not, in fact, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. Just Surveillance? Towards a Normative Theory of Surveillance.Kevin Macnish - 2014 - Surveillance and Society 12 (1):142-153.
    Despite recent growth in surveillance capabilities there has been little discussion regarding the ethics of surveillance. Much of the research that has been carried out has tended to lack a coherent structure or fails to address key concerns. I argue that the just war tradition should be used as an ethical framework which is applicable to surveillance, providing the questions which should be asked of any surveillance operation. In this manner, when considering whether to employ surveillance, one should take (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  31. Weighing Lives in War- Foreign Vs. Domestic.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2018 - In Larry May (ed.), Cambridge Handbook on the Just War. pp. 186-198.
    I argue that the lives of domestic and enemy civilians should not receive equal weight in our proportionality calculations. Rather, the lives of enemy civilians ought to be “partially discounted” relative to the lives of domestic civilians. We ought to partially discount the lives of enemy civilians for the following reason (or so I argue). When our military wages a just war, we as civilians vest our right to self-defense in our military. This permits our military to weigh our (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  32. The Teleological Account of Proportional Surveillance.Frej Klem Thomsen - 2020 - Res Publica (3):1-29.
    This article analyses proportionality as a potential element of a theory of morally justified surveillance, and sets out a teleological account. It draws on conceptions in criminal justice ethics and just war theory, defines teleological proportionality in the context of surveillance, and sketches some of the central values likely to go into the consideration. It then explores some of the ways in which deontologists might want to modify the account and illustrates the difficulties of doing so. Having (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. Reconnoitering Combatant Moral Equality.Roger Wertheimer - 2007 - Journal of Military Ethics 6 (1):60-74.
    Contra Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan, neither classical just war theory nor the contemporary rules of war require or support any notion of combatant moral equality. Nations rightly accept prohibitions against punishing enemy combatants without recognizing any legal or moral right of aggressors to kill. The notion of combatant moral equality has real import only in our interpersonal -- and intrapersonal -- attitudes, since the notion effectively preempts any ground for conscientious objection. Walzer is criticized for over-emphasizing our (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  34. Terrorism, Jus Post Bellum and the Prospect of Peace.Anne Schwenkenbecher - 2017 - In Florian Demont-Biaggi (ed.), The Nature of Peace and the Morality of Armed Conflict. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 123-140.
    Just war scholars are increasingly focusing on the importance of jus post bellum – justice after war – for the legitimacy of military campaigns. Should something akin to jus post bellum standards apply to terrorist campaigns? Assuming that at least some terrorist actors pursue legitimate goals or just causes, do such actors have greater difficulty satisfying the prospect-of-success criterion of Just War Theory than military actors? Further, may the use of the terrorist method as such – (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. Compensation and Proportionality in War.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2017 - In Claire Finkelstein, Larry Larry & Jens David Ohlin (eds.), Weighing Lives in War. Oxford University Press).
    Even in just wars we infringe the rights of countless civilians whose ruination enables us to protect our own rights. These civilians are owed compensation, even in cases where the collateral harms they suffer satisfy the proportionality constraint. I argue that those who authorize or commit the infringements and who also benefit from those harms will bear that compensatory duty, even if the unjust aggressor cannot or will not discharge that duty. I argue further that if we suspect antecedently (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. Non-Combatant Immunity and War-Profiteering.Saba Bazargan - 2017 - In Helen Frowe & Lazar Seth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and War. Oxford University Press.
    The principle of noncombatant immunity prohibits warring parties from intentionally targeting noncombatants. I explicate the moral version of this view and its criticisms by reductive individualists; they argue that certain civilians on the unjust side are morally liable to be lethally targeted to forestall substantial contributions to that war. I then argue that reductivists are mistaken in thinking that causally contributing to an unjust war is a necessary condition for moral liability. Certain noncontributing civilians—notably, war-profiteers—can be morally liable to be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. Conspiring with the Enemy: The Ethic of Cooperation in Warfare.Yvonne Chiu - 2019 - New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
    *Winner of the North American Society for Social Philosophy (NASSP) Book Award 2019.* -/- Although military mores have relied primarily on just war theory, the ethic of cooperation in warfare (ECW)—between enemies even as they are trying to kill each other—is as central to the practice of warfare and to conceptualization of its morality. Neither game theory nor unilateral moral duties (God-given or otherwise) can explain the explicit language of cooperation in developing and enforcing principles of military (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. Complicitous Liability in War.Saba Bazargan - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (1):177-195.
    Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-based account of killing in warfare. On this account, a combatant is morally liable to be killed only if doing so is an effective means of reducing or eliminating an unjust threat to which that combatant is contributing. Since combatants fighting for a just cause generally do not contribute to unjust threats, they are not morally liable to be killed; thus MEC is mistaken. The problem, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  39. War and Moral Consistency.Jonathan Parry - 2020 - In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (5th Edition). pp. 692-703.
    Provides an opinionated overview of some recent debates within the ethics of war.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. Preventive Wars, Just War Principles, and the United Nations.John W. Lango - 2005 - Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):247-268.
    This paper explores the question of whether the United Nations should engage in preventive military actions. Correlatively, it asks whether UN preventive military actions could satisfy just war principles. Rather than from the standpoint of the individual nation state, the ethics of preventive war is discussed from the standpoint of the UN. For the sake of brevity, only the legitimate authority, just cause, last resort, and proportionality principles are considered. Since there has been disagreement about the specific content (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  41. Just Cause and the Continuous Application of Jus Ad Bellum.Uwe Steinhoff - forthcoming - In Larry May May, Shannon Elizabeth Fyfe & Eric Joseph Ritter (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook on Just War Theory. Cambridge University Press.
    What one is ultimately interested in with regard to ‘just cause’ is whether a specific war, actual or potential, is justified. I call this ‘the applied question’. Answering this question requires knowing the empirical facts on the ground. However, an answer to the applied question regarding a specific war requires a prior answer to some more general questions, both descriptive and normative. These questions are: What kind of thing is a ‘just cause’ for war (an aim, an injury (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Unjust War and a Soldier's Moral Dilemma.Jeff Montrose - 2013 - Journal of Military Ethics 12 (4):325-340.
    This paper explores the central question of why soldiers in democratic societies might decide to fight in wars that they may have reason to believe are objectively or questionably unjust. First, I provide a framework for understanding the dilemma caused by an unjust war and a soldier's competing moral obligations; namely, the obligations to self and state. Next, I address a few traditional key thoughts concerning soldiers and jus ad bellum. This is followed by an exploration of the unique and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  43. The Moral Equality of Combatants.Barry Christian & Christie Lars - 2017 - In Seth Lazar & Helen Frowe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants holds that combatants on either side of a war have equal moral status, even if one side is fighting a just war while the other is not. This chapter examines arguments that have been offered for and against this doctrine, including the collectivist position famously articulated by Walzer and McMahan’s influential individualist critique. We also explore collectivist positions that have rejected the moral equality doctrine and arguments that some individualists have offered (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. Jus Ad Bellum After 9/11: A State of the Art Report.Mark Rigstad - 2007 - International Political Theory Beacon.
    An examination of the applicability of conventional and revisionist just war principles to the global war on terror.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45. Skepticism About Jus Post Bellum.Seth Lazar - 2012 - In Larry May & Andrew Forcehimes (eds.), Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law. Cambridge University Press. pp. 204-222.
    The burgeoning literature on jus post bellum has repeatedly reaffirmed three positions that strike me as deeply implausible: that in the aftermath of wars, compensation should be a priority; that we should likewise prioritize punishing political leaders and war criminals even in the absence of legitimate multilateral institutions; and that when states justifiably launch armed humanitarian interventions, they become responsible for reconstructing the states into which they have intervened – the so called “Pottery Barn” dictum, “You break it, you own (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  46. Proxy Battles in the Ethics of War.Seth Lazar & Laura Valentini - 2017 - In David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne & Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy: Volume 3. London, U.K.: Oxford University Press. pp. 166-193.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. Understanding the Political Defensive Privilege.Patrick Emerton & Toby Handfield - 2014 - In Cecile Fabre & Seth Lazar (eds.), The Morality of Defensive War. Oxford University Press. pp. 40-65.
    Nations are understood to have a right to go to war, not only in defense of individual rights, but in defense of their own political standing in a given territory. This paper argues that the political defensive privilege cannot be satisfactorily explained, either on liberal cosmopolitan grounds or on pluralistic grounds. In particular, it is argued that pluralistic accounts require giving implausibly strong weight to the value of political communities, overwhelming the standing of individuals. Liberal cosmopolitans, it is argued, underestimate (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  48. A Role for Coercive Force in the Theory of Global Justice?Endre Begby - forthcoming - In Thom Brooks (ed.), New Waves in Gobal Justice. Palgrave-MacMillan.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49.  99
    Defensive Wars and the Reprisal Dilemma.Saba Bazargan - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (3):583-601.
    I address a foundational problem with accounts of the morality of war that are derived from the Just War Tradition. Such accounts problematically focus on ‘the moment of crisis’: i.e. when a state is considering a resort to war. This is problematic because sometimes the state considering the resort to war is partly responsible for wrongly creating the conditions in which the resort to war becomes necessary. By ignoring this possibility, JWT effectively ignores, in its moral evaluation of wars, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  50.  87
    Nanotechnologically Enhanced Combat Systems: The Downside of Invulnerability.Robert Mark Simpson & Robert Sparrow - 2014 - In Bert Gordijn & Anthony Mark Cutter (eds.), In Pursuit of Nanoethics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. pp. 89-103.
    In this paper we examine the ethical implications of emerging Nanotechnologically Enhanced Combat Systems (or 'NECS'). Through a combination of materials innovation and biotechnology, NECS are aimed at making combatants much less vulnerable to munitions that pose a lethal threat to soldiers protected by conventional armor. We argue that increasing technological disparities between forces armed with NECS and those without will exacerbate the ethical problems of asymmetric warfare. This will place pressure on the just war principles of jus in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000