Abstract
AbstractThe intriguing relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello has provoked perennial academic debates. This article examines this issue from Chinese perspectives and offers a cultural critique of the well-entrenched norm of the ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law. Based on its distinctive traditional perception of the world order and the meaning of war, China embraces a holistic understanding of the ad bellum/in bello relationship. This relationship is construed as essentially harmonized. The cardinal moral principle underpinning it is that a just war should be conducted in a just way. The ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law has a Western origin, and the rationale behind it intimates Western sensitivity to the European just war tradition in which jus in bello was parasitic on jus ad bellum. It is assumed that jus ad bellum and jus in bello are irreconcilably in conflict once they come into contact with one another. This assumption is followed by a widely-held belief that any attempt to reconnect the two concepts would bring nothing but the subordination of jus in bello to jus ad bellum as experienced in European just war and, consequently, the collapse of the former. Chinese perspectives nevertheless evidence that this conventional line of thinking, hampering scholars from thinking beyond the sealed ad bellum/in bello separation, is not sound. A proposal for a more constructive solution should be taken into consideration.
Highlights
The cardinal moral principle underpinning it is that a just war should be conducted in a just way
The ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law has a Western origin, and the rationale behind it intimates Western sensitivity to the European just war tradition in which jus in bello was parasitic on jus ad bellum
One of the common grounds shared by mainstream scholars of international humanitarian law (IHL) and military ethics is the separation between jus ad bellum – the law governing resorting to force and jus in bello – the law regulating the conduct of war
Summary
One of the common grounds shared by mainstream scholars of international humanitarian law (IHL) and military ethics is the separation between jus ad bellum – the law governing resorting to force and jus in bello – the law regulating the conduct of war. Rajan, ‘Principles of Laws of War in Ancient India and the Concept of Mitigating Armed Conflicts through Controlled Fights’, (2014) 5 Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 333. Imperial China witnessed the rise and fall of the Han (206 BC–220) and Tang dynasties (618–907) which made China one of the great powers in the ancient world, the Song dynasty (960–1279) which controlled a relatively small portion of China, and the Yuan (1279–1368) and Qing dynasties (1644–1912) whose rulers were Mongols and Manchus respectively.19 Notwithstanding such an intricate storyline, the shaping of the very basis of Chinese civilization mostly took place during the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods (771–221 BC) prior to Qin’s unification of China.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
