Abstract
This chapter focuses on the conflicting views of justice in war, traced through the seventeenth century to the last century, and is an introduction to the modern debate on justice in war in historical context. Grotius, unsurprisingly, took a position in between these two, and suggested an entirely new legal approach. It allowed Grotius to put forward a theory which claimed that states had tacitly agreed that, irrespective of the objective justice of their claims, their representatives in battle (commanders and soldiers) could be recognized as having mutual and legitimate rights against each other in war. The final section of this chapter outlines the three traditional conceptions of justice, and demonstrates how the debate set out between the positions of Rousseau, Hobbes and Grotius continued through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The three traditional conceptions of justice includes the martial conception of justice, the grotian conception of justice and the Republican Conception of Political Justice.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.