scholarly journals EXTENDING JUST WAR THEORY: THE JUS AD BELLUM AND THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH TO ARMED CONFLICT

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deane-Peter Baker ◽  
Deborah Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Capabilities Approach ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

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.

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.

The Pragmatic Approach

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Pattison
Keyword(s):  
Moral Theory ◽  
Just War ◽  
International System ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Alternative Approaches

This chapter explicates the Pragmatic Approach, which is used to assess the ethics of the alternatives to war. This approach is pragmatic in that it is significantly instrumentalist and takes seriously the nonideal and contingent features of the contemporary international system. The chapter first outlines a series of tests any moral theory should meet, before going on to present the central features of the Pragmatic Approach. The chapter then defends this approach, showing how it meets the four tests outlined and is superior to alternative approaches. It also delineates the links to Just War Theory, and especially the jus ad bellum principles of necessity and proportionality. The end of the chapter considers how the values on the Pragmatic Approach should be weighed.

The Alternatives, Just War Theory, and Pacifism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Pattison
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Normative Reasons ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Feasible Option ◽  
Practical Implications

This chapter delineates the theoretical and practical implications of the preceding analysis. It first summarizes the case for each of the alternatives in turn, before considering the implications for war. In doing so, the chapter highlights the two central themes of the book: (1) there are several normative reasons in favour of the alternatives and (2) there are further objections to war. It argues that, although the preceding analysis appears to strengthen the case for pacifism (since there is more to the alternatives than it often seems), it also poses a challenge to it. The chapter then outlines the implications for the jus ad bellum principle of last resort. It defends an account of ‘Presumptive Last Resort’, which holds that war should be presumed to be the last feasible option. It also outlines five implications for the responsibility to protect doctrine.

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.

10. War and intervention

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Frowe
Keyword(s):  
War On Terror ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
World War ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
The World ◽  
Just War Tradition

This chapter examines the main theoretical approaches to war and the circumstances under which it is permissible to wage war. War is one of the most morally difficult, and morally pressing, aspects of human existence. It nearly always involves killing and maiming on a vast scale. Despite its destructive nature, and despite the rise of rights talk on the international stage and the spread of democracy across large parts of the world, war persists. The chapter first considers the just war tradition and alternatives to just war theory before discussing two theoretical approaches to the ethics of war: collectivism and individualism. It also explores three principles that govern the fighting of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. A case study on Afghanistan and the ‘war on terror’ is presented, along with Key Thinkers boxes featuring Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan.

Just War Thinking as a Social Practice

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kelsay
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Social Practice ◽  
Just War ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Force ◽  
International Studies ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
War Discourse

The abstract for the International Studies Association panel that gave rise to this special section of Ethics & International Affairs referred to the “triumph” of just war theory. However, I think we ought rather to speak of just war discourse as occupying a particular niche. This is especially so with respect to discussions about policy: when and where governments should make use of military force, what type, and so on. In that context, appeals to the criteria of jus ad bellum and jus in bello complement (or sometimes compete with) thinking that draws on international law, various strategic doctrines (for example, counterinsurgency warfare, or COIN), notions of reciprocity between states, and a host of other considerations. The notion of “triumph” claims too much. At the same time, for advocates of the just war framework, the kind of recognition indicated by presidential and other official mentions of the idea is worthy of note. Some of these are due to constituency politics—that is, to the idea that “institutional” advocates of just war (say, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) may influence blocs of voters. Other invocations are better interpreted as a recognition that the vocabulary of just war can serve (along with other ways of speaking) in the attempt to craft wise policy.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document