Michael Walzer's Concept of 'Supreme Emergency'

Abstract

This paper critically examines Michael Walzer's famous efforts to integrate a 'supreme emergency' exemption into the ordinary restraints of jus in bello. The author argues that, while Walzer raises valid points about the felt responsibilities of leaders of political communities under extreme pressure, it is a mistake philosophically and prudentially to think of supreme emergency as granting moral permission to violate the jus in bello rules. Instead, the author argues, any violations of ordinary restraints should remain violations. However, by analogy, with exoneration from penalty for violations of criminal law in extreme circumstances, one might imagine political leaders' decisions to violate just war restraints to be (in very rare and extreme circumstances) forgivable but not permissible in advance.