Just & Unjust War, Uses of Force & Coercion: An Ethical Inquiry with Cyber Illustrations

Daedalus ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 145 (4) ◽  
pp. 37-49
Author(s):  
David P. Fidler
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Ethical Inquiry ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Ethical Consensus

The emergence of cyber means and methods of war, force, and coercion raises ethical questions under just war theory different from those historically generated by the development of ever more destructive instruments of war. Whether in armed conflict or contexts not considered war, cyber technologies create political and ethical incentives for their use. However, this attractiveness poses potential risks and dangers that, at present, are largely speculative but invite more ethical deliberation. Unfortunately, the convergence of political and ethical incentives on cyber in a context of increasing geopolitical competition and conflict make the prospects for ethical consensus on just and unjust cyber coercion, force, and war unlikely.

Just War Theory & the Conduct of Asymmetric Warfare

Daedalus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 146 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-70
Author(s):  
Allen S. Weiner
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Central Element ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Asymmetric Warfare

A central element of the dominant view of just war theory is the moral equality of soldiers: combatants have equal rights to wage war against one another and are entitled to certain protections if captured, without regard to which side's cause of war is just. But whether and how this principle should apply in asymmetric armed conflicts between states and nonstate groups is profoundly unsettled. I argue that we should confer war rights on fighters for nonstate groups when they are engaged in violence that has risen to the level of armed conflict, and when the state against which the war is being waged is not entitled to assert its monopoly on the legitimate exercise of force, either because 1) the nonstate group has established sufficient control over territory to assert its own governing authority; or 2) because the group is located abroad. Conferring war rights on nonstate fighters does not, however, permit them to engage in acts that violate the laws of war. Fighters who commit such violations are individually subject to prosecution without regard to their group's entitlement to war rights.

Debating Targeted Killing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Meisels ◽  
Jeremy Waldron
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Targeted Killing ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right

In this “for and against” book, Jeremy Waldron and Tamar Meisels defend competing positions on the legitimacy of targeted killing. The volume begins with a joint introduction, briefly setting out the terms of discussion, and presenting a short historical overview of the practice—i.e. what is targeted killing, and how has it been used in which conflicts and by whom. The debate opens with Meisels’ defense of targeted killing as a legitimate and desirable defensive anti-terrorism strategy, in keeping with both just war theory and international law. Meisels unreservedly defends the named killing of irregular combatants, most notably terrorists, during armed conflict. Additionally, she offers a possible moral justification for rare instances of assassination outside that framework, specifically with reference to recent cases of nuclear scientists developing weapons of mass destruction for the Iranian and Syrian governments. The debate continues with Waldron’s arguments focusing on the dangers and the inherent wrongness of governments’ having the right to maintain death lists—lists of named individuals who are to be hunted down and killed. Waldron notes the many differences between individualized targeting and ordinary combat, and he resists the attempt to assimilate targeted killing to killings in combat. Waldron also cautions us to consider carefully what a world of targeted killings will be like, the many abuses it is liable to, and why we should be very cautious, morally and strategically, in our thinking about it.

scholarly journals Legitimate Authority and the Ethics of War: A Map of the Terrain

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Parry
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
The Third ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Moral Claims

Despite a recent explosion of interest in the ethics of armed conflict, the traditional just war criterion that war be waged by a “legitimate authority” has received relatively little attention. Moreover, of those theorists who have addressed the criterion, many are deeply skeptical about its moral significance. This article aims to add some clarity and precision to the authority criterion and the debates surrounding it, and to suggest that this skepticism may be too quick. The first section analyzes the authority criterion and reveals that there are at least two distinct moral claims associated with it, each requiring separate evaluation. The second section outlines an increasingly influential “reductivist” approach to just war theory, explaining how this approach grounds powerful objections to the authority criterion. The third section sketches the most promising strategies for providing a qualified defense of authority, while acknowledging the further questions and complications these strategies raise. Importantly, the article aims to rehabilitate the authority criterion from within a broadly reductivist view.

scholarly journals Revisionist Just War Theory and the Impossibility of a Moral Victory

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Moral Standards ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
International Human

Recently, the militarization of the police has received much comment while less attention has been given to the application of civilian legal and moral standards to soldiers in combat zones. This shift is partly the product of ‘revisionist’ just war theorists, who understand war in terms of individual responsibility, challenging conventional views on the rights of states to defend themselves and replacing the Law of Armed Conflict with International Human Rights Law. This is a retrograde step; it loses contact with realities of warfare and validates the critique of just war thinking as encouraging a Manichean worldview. Classical just war thinking is about discrimination, avoiding the absolutism of both pacifism and an amoral realpolitik; revisionist just war theory is effectively pacifist insofar as no actual war could be fought that would satisfy its conditions. Discrimination disappears, and with it the possibility of a moral or any other kind of victory.

scholarly journals Iraq, the U.N. and the Law

1969 ◽  
pp. 560
Author(s):  
L. C. Green
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
United Nations Charter

This paper discusses the international legal issues arising out of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the United Nations response to the conflict. The author frames his analysis considering just war theory, international law and the United Nations Charter. After looking at the historical relations between Iraq and Kuwait, Professor Green examines the United Nations response to the conflict considering the related U.N. resolutions. Reference is made to the law of armed conflict and international law on the treatment of civilians and diplomats. Finally, the author briefly discusses legal problems faced by some of the states aligned against Iraq.

Revisionist Just War Theory and the Concept of War Crimes

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEJANDRO CHEHTMAN
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Legal Punishment

AbstractUnder contemporary international law, war crimes are conceived as particularly serious violations of the laws of armed conflict. Mere participation of rank-and-file soldiers in an unjust or unlawful war is generally not considered to warrant legal punishment. This position is based on the principle of equality between belligerents. During the last 20 years, this principle has been challenged by the so-called revisionist position in just war theory, as well as by certain scholars in international law. According to them, unjust or unlawful participants in armed conflict perpetrate serious wrongs. This article argues that their conduct is not only morally wrongful, but also that it should be criminalized under certain circumstances. On the basis of empirical research on cognitive biases, and on one of the leading accounts of legitimate authority in political philosophy, it argues that participation in war warrants criminalization only when the war is knowingly or manifestly unlawful. Furthermore, it claims that this position is not only sound at the level of deep moral principles, but that in fact it provides a persuasive reinterpretation of existing international law.

Just War Theory and the Laws of War as Nonidentical Twins

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Luban
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Special Character ◽  
Forms Of Violence

AbstractThis essay examines the similarities, but even more the dissimilarities, between (nonrevisionist) just war theory and the laws of war. The similarities are obvious: both just war theory and the laws of war distinguish jus ad bellum from jus in bello, and incorporate the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. The dissimilarities derive from the special character of law. Law needs binary, yes-no standards for drawing lines, for example between armed conflict and lesser forms of violence. Laws come in packages (regimes), so that changing only one law is not always practicable. And legal propositions, unlike philosophical propositions, are often detachable from their reasons and applied in unexpected and unwelcome ways. This is especially important in the stresses of battle, when rules of warfare must be usable “off the shelf” by middle- or lower-ranked personnel with no opportunity for bespoke deliberation. The essay provides contemporary illustrations of these differences.

scholarly journals Justice, Jihad and Duty: The Quranic Concept of Armed Conflict

ICR Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-303
Author(s):  
Joel Hayward
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Ethical Behaviour ◽  
General Overview ◽  
Just War Tradition

The Quran is among the most widely read books on earth, yet it is also commonly misunderstood and misquoted. Islams critics say that it contains exhortations of violence against non-Muslims and a concept of war that is far more unbridled and indiscriminate than the western Just War theory. This study is not a general overview or critique of the Islamic laws of war, which are the varied and sometimes contradictory opinions of medieval Islamic jurists, mainly from the ninth to thirteenth centuries CE. Instead, this study analyses only the Quranic text itself and, by putting its verses into historical context, attempts to explain its codes of conduct in order to determine what it actually requires or permits Muslims to do in terms of the use of military force. It concludes that the Quran is clear: Muslims must not undertake offensive violence and are instructed, if defensive warfare should become unavoidable, always to act within a code of ethical behaviour that is closely similar to the western Just War tradition. This study attempts to dispel any misperceptions that Islams holy book advocates the subjugation or killing of non-Muslims and reveals that, on the contrary, its key and unequivocal concepts governing warfare are based on justice and a profound belief in the sanctity of human life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document