Just War Research Articles

Strategies, Symbols, and Subjectivities: The Continuities between War Rape and Lesbo-Phobic Rape

AbstractResearch into war rape has shown that rape is not incidental to the general violence of war but is instead an integral part of war strategies. Such research makes it clear that in the context of war, rape serves to injure women on an individual level, but has the more strategic effect of fracturing communal bonds. Similarly, the growing body of research investigating the reasons for, and consequences of, the rape of lesbian women, indicates that these rapes have far-reaching consequences for lesbian communities and serves to reinforce patriarchal heteronormativity. While there is much research around both war and lesbo-phobic rape, the aim of this paper is to bring this research together in order examine lesbo-phobic rape through the lens of war rape theory. This paper aims to show how both “forms” of rape appear to hinge on the meanings assigned to women during peacetime and how both lead to the destruction of individual victims and their communities, while bolstering the subjectivities of the perpetrators and increasing the bonds of those complicit in such violence. The use of the theoretical understandings of war rape thus enriches the understandings of lesbo-phobic rape and shows that there are many continuities between the two.

Trapped values of education and threat to national security in temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine

The strong democratic nations tend to follow UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) while weak states choose the way of war for immediate self-affirmation. This destructive way is an insurmountable obstacle for SDGs tracking as a whole and primarily in the educational sector. Despite the influence of “the Fair War Theory”, the war is perceived as a source of destructive aggression, deaths, destructions, violence and moral degradation. Any war is aimed at the occupation of territories when the occupation regime uses vari-ous instruments and the collaborationism is the most widespread. Within the scope of this article the educational collaborationism is subject to a special analysis as it plays one of the major roles in creating an effective occupation system. We do not aim at providing the comprehensive consideration and interpretation of the phenom-enon of “Educators’ Collaborationism”, as well as the identification and detailed ex-planation of the entire spectrum of its destructive consequences. The purpose is to articulate the mentioned phenomenon within the problem of using education as a tool of occupation and threat to the national security of the occupied state. The methodological design of the study is based on a situational approach, which em-phasizes the importance of considering a number of factors influencing the changes in the educational process during the occupation, as well as the identification of situational variables that affect the level of access to higher education (HE), its quali-ty and content on the occupied territories. The method of qualitative case-study re-search made it possible to formulate certain generalizations about this phenomenon and its effect on HE in particular. It was found out that in the temporarily occupied territories education is used as a tool to strengthen and legitimize the occupation regime. Among the key agents there are also the occupiers’ assistants from the educational sector. The analysis of spe-cific situations gives reason to claim that the conscious, voluntary cooperation of educators with the enemy provokes the erosion of the ethical principles of educa-tion, its degradation and blocks the SDGs accomplishing. Such activity has negative consequences as it aggressively denies managerial autonomy, the right for academ-ic freedom and other components of quality HE and other SDGs as they all are inter-linked. Unfortunately, we are to admit that the educational transformative occupation causes total paralysis and even erosion of the national education system in the tem-porarily occupied Ukrainian territories. Therefore, the consequences of the implemen-tation of educational transformative occupation should determine the directions of the processes of de-occupied territories education restauration.

Ethics of Conflict, Violence and Peace – Just War and a Feminist Ethic of Care

This paper critically examines Just War Theory and its philosophical foundations, which are conventionally positioned in opposition to pacifism and nonviolent conflict. This paper, however, takes the view that both, Just War Theory as well as pacifism and nonviolent conflict, are equally necessary and complementary approaches to living with the possibilities and tragedies of the human condition. Its approach is grounded in feminist theory and methodology and their connections with Galtung’s models of violence and peace. The paper argues that the weaknesses of Just War Theory are intrinsic to the concept and its intent. The inherent contradiction of Just War Theory being that it intended to translate universal moral principles into reality, which makes them context dependent. Fundamentally, Just War Theory is derived from an ethic of justice ultimately centred on the right to use violence and kill. The right is conditional but means that a path to peace inevitably starts from death. An ethic of care is a philosophy where feminist thought meets pacifism and nonviolent conflict. It starts from the creation of life and charts paths to positive peace through the nurture of the conditions for lives in dignity. If we seek to contain the destructive and give space to the creative aspects of the human condition and understand its two extremes, life and death, in their relation to human agency, better we need to complement the traditional ethic of justice (of war and violence) with an ethic of care.

AUTONOMOUS WEAPON SYSTEMS AND THE JUST WAR THEORY: CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS

Autonomous weapon systems (AWS) present a formidable obstacle to the application of just war theory in international law. While just war theory has long served as a framework for assessing the moral and legal justification of armed conflict, the lack of human control over the use of force in AWS creates unique ethical and legal challenges. This article investigates the effects of AWS on just war theory in international law, including the application of jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria. It discusses the benefits and drawbacks of AWS, the current legal framework for these systems, and the difficulties associated with applying just war theory criteria to AWS. The article concludes with recommendations for future research and policy development to address these challenges, including the need for additional research, the development of clear legal frameworks, international cooperation and coordination, public participation and awareness, and research on alternative approaches to the use of AWS in armed conflict. By addressing these concerns, researchers can work toward a future in which the development and use of AWS are consistent with the principles of the just war theory and international law

Just Wars Theory as a Key Element of Germany’s New Sonderweg

The article traces the evolution and key characteristics of the German Sonderweg – Germany’s special path starting from the end of the 19th – the middle of the 20th century. The article considers geopolitical, ideological, and historical reasons for its emergence, transformation, and the specificity of its normative constitution, designed to morally justify the use of military force as an indispensable lever for Germany to achieve its goal of creating a “German Europe.” We develop a hypothesis of a possible remake at the beginning of the 21st century of a new German Sonderweg, focused on creation of the “European Germany,” stemming from liberalism and just war theory. It is demonstrated that Zeitenwende, announced in 2022, facilitated the possible resort to arms and made militant solution of political dilemmas a reality again. The discourse analysis of the German political speeches makes it possible to claim that the political elites in Germany are preconcerted with normative justification of the possible war. The article considers two major lines of transformation of the contemporary just war theory and their possible implication in the German military and defense policy. One of these is the emergence of human rights paradigm of the just war doctrine, another – the growing tendency of the theory to stick to national cultural tradition instead of moral universalism. The combination of the two tendencies may trigger an array of very special and unpredictable normative developments of the military policy in Germany. The further movement alongside the idea of jus ad bellum may provoke specific national perceptions of the justice of the war, which may merge the idea of just war with traditional German realism if not militarism. This tendency may lure Germany into a trap of, what we term, “human rights militarism.” To what extent the trap is viable depends on the normative constitution of the key elements of Sonderweg.

Environmental Ethics of War: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and the Natural Environment

The conduct of hostilities is very bad for the environment, yet relatively little attention has been focused on environmental military ethics by just war theorists and revisionist philosophers of war. Contemporary ecological concerns pose significant challenges to jus in bello. I begin by briefly surveying existing literature on environmental justice during wartime. While these jus in bello environmental issues have been addressed only sparsely by just war theorists, environmental jus ad bellum has rarely been tackled within JWT or the morality of war. In line with the theme of this special issue, I focus my discussion of war and the natural environment primarily on the jus ad bellum level. I set out with the presumption against the use of force, and its possible exceptions. The principal question raised is whether environmental harm can trigger a new justification for war. Beyond just cause, I consider what might be a proportionate response to “environmental aggression,” or negligent harm to nature. The use of force is clearly justified in response to military attacks, against the natural environment or otherwise. Where harm to nature or its inhabitants are not caused by military aggression, just war theory criteria point in favor of responding via measures short of war. Finally, I suggest that responding by means that are not themselves harmful to nature serves to fulfill the further jus ad bellum criterion of “right intention.”

A ‘Just Cause’ or ‘Just A Cause’: Perils of the Zero-sum Model of Moral Responsibility for War

In this paper the author aims to explain the consequences of the implicit application of the zero-sum game model of distribution of moral responsibility for war, i.e., for causing war, within the context of the dominant perspective of modern-day ethics of war – Just War Theory. The main criterion of the jus ad bellum concept of Just War Theory, “just cause,” recognizes the possibility of only one “cause” of war, and every attempt to further analyze and investigate deeper causes of war is automatically perceived through the zero-sum lens, as an attempt to justify or excuse the unjust side in war. No such thing happens when analyzing other, extremely morally troubling and disturbing phenomena as we invest significant effort into attempting to explain evil without this effort ever being understood as a justification attempt. The author demonstrates how the described approach in Just War Theory prevents us from fully understanding war, and thus implicitly from how to normatively prescribe human actions in and regarding war. The author also asserts that this perspective actually represents a presupposition concerning the possibility of justness of war. The author concludes that, in order to fully understand war and properly morally evaluate it, ethics of war must adopt a non-zero-sum model of distribution of moral responsibility and acknowledge the existence of a wide variety of causes of war.

Combating International Cyber Conflict: A Healthy Just War and International Law Analysis of NATO and Indonesian Policies

This study explores the policies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Indonesia in the context of international cyber conflict, analyzing their alignment with just war theory principles and international legal norms. By applying just war theory principles and international law, this study aims to analyze the responsible conduct of states in the realm of cyber warfare, fostering a more secure and stable international environment. This study employs a qualitative analytical method, examining the policies of NATO and Indonesia through the ethical lens of just war theory and the legal perspective of international law. The principles of jus ad bellum (righteous reasons for conflict), jus in bello (ethical conduct during conflict), and international cooperation guide the analysis, providing a comprehensive framework for evaluating the policies of these entities. Adherence to righteous reasons for cyber response, ethical conduct during cyber conflict, and international legal norms are paramount in resolving conflicts arising from cyber threats. By incorporating just war theory principles into their policies, entities can demonstrate ethical responsibility, minimize unnecessary harm, and foster an environment conducive to conflict resolution. Through this approach, NATO and Indonesia, alongside the global community, can contribute to the development of a secure and stable digital landscape. This paper's novelty lies in its integrated analysis of NATO and Indonesia's policies, considering both ethical and legal dimensions through the lens of just war theory and international law.

War Ethics and War Morality: An Introduction

War ethics might sound as impossible combination of words – how justify what seems to be unjustifiable? War is prima facie unjustifiable. However, wars are a fact of human reality, and those among us who are unfortunate to live in times of war – in a way it is all of us – would know that the reality is not just a possibility, that prima facie designation does not help in answering what must be done, that unjustifiability does not imply impossibility. We must understand to be able to explain, and to explain to have a valid evaluation, especially when what is happening is important and with far-reaching consequences. Wars are such phenomena. We live amid such phenomena, and we need to understand not only their tragic and often cataclysmic nature, but also their meaning, their structure and logic of their functioning. We should understand that war is not something that happens only to others, nor that it is the matter of the past. In the present volume we have thirty-three essays examining war from many angles, sometimes from the opposite standpoints, exploring some of the most intriguing issues of warfare in times characterized by radical changes in the world in turmoil. The contributions in present volume give an overview of the world’s thinking about war. The volume is certainly incomplete and unfinished, but it gives a lot of thought-provoking incentives to think about the most important aspects of warfare and its broad phenomenology.

Just War contra Drone Warfare

In this article, I present a two-pronged argument for the immorality of contemporary, asymmetric drone warfare, based on my new interpretations of the just war principles of “proportionality” and “moral equivalence of combatants” (MEC). The justification for these new interpretations is that drone warfare continues to this day, having survived despite arguments against it that are based on traditional interpretations of just war theory (including one from Michael Walzer). On the basis of my argument, I echo Harry Van der Linden’s call for “an international treaty banning all weaponized UAV [uninhabited aerial vehicles].”

Killing and Dying for Public Relations

My starting point is the first major American military action in World War II in Europe, “Operation Torch.” The action was controversial because the American military regarded it as militarily useless, if not counterproductive. But the military was overruled by President Roosevelt on the grounds that, while it was not militarily necessary, it was politically justified. This indifference to military necessity seems to violate standard rules about the legitimacy of military force. The larger question it raises is the relation between military concerns and political ones in warfare. Much of this essay explores the relation between these two dimensions in war: the military dimension and the political dimension. I argue that the second dimension is the most important one, as well as the most problematic one for the legitimacy of war. Yet it is ignored by standard just war theories. I then return at the end to consider again the problems raised by “Operation Torch,” and especially the question of the harms inflicted on a country’s own soldiers – in the name of killing and dying for public relations.

The Nature of War

The traditional definition of war given by classical authors is, that war is a violent conflict between sovereigns. This means that war cannot be outlawed by any higher authority, since the sovereign is the uppermost authority upon the lives of the persons that are subject to them. Only the sovereign has the right and the power to forbid the violent resolution of conflicts among their subjects, and as sovereign they are not subject to any higher worldly power, but only to the power of God. The obligations to God are for the most classical authors not of legal nature but constitute the realm of morality. Thus, the main question for the classical authors on war theory is the clarification of the moral conditions that justify a sovereign to wage war against another sovereign, the so-called theory of just war. Since the classical authors subordinate the concept of war under the concept of justice, the theory of just war includes reflections about the proper means of conducting a war from the point of view of justice. In other words, the theory of just war also formulates criteria for such acts that are considered as war crimes. In this essay I will not challenge the theory of just war itself, but the traditional definition of war in terms of exertion of legitimate violence. My alternative definition will be given in the third section of the essay, and relies on the Platonic concept of peace, and on the Aristotelian concepts of privation and analogy. I think that violence is not a constitutive characteristic of war, but the conceptual, i.e., logical consequence of its definition. In other words, the state of war can be declared and persist without any acts of violence. The use of violence is justified by the manifestation of the state of war.

Führerprinzip or 'I Was Following Orders' in Jus in Bello Era

In June of 1945, the International Military Tribunal (ITM) formed in London, faced the problem of a non-yet existing legal armor for the Nazi crimes. Two new rules were widely accepted there. First, a new category of war crimes, the “crimes against humanity” was legally defined. Second, the ex-ante rejection of the defense line “I was following orders” or Führerprinzip (the principle of the duty to obey every order given by the military leader). In the first part of this paper, I will present in brief, the historical and legal context of the rejection of Führerprinzip as a defense line of the Nazi defendants in Nuremberg trials as also in Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, where the same legal context was enacted. Next, I will expose a short history of conscientious objection in war ethics and the International Law on Human Rights that supports it. This exposition reveals that objection to criminal orders has the status not only of a right, but also of a duty for the soldiers on either side of the war. In the third part, the Rawlsian view on conscientious objector will be exposed as the meeting point of a broadly Kantian conception of war ethics and the existing International Law frame. In the final part I will present some philosophical aspects of jus in bello theory, as also the critique of its importance, and its contribution to the reification of the moral importance of conscientious objection in wartime and the rejection of Führerprinzip.

The Problem of the Legitimacy of War in the Context of Ethical Concepts: The Example of the 44-day War

The article analyzes the issues of the legitimacy of war, the relationship between war and morality in the context of different ethical concepts. It is shown that the somewhat ‘fashionable’ notion of the ethics of war is actually problematic and does not clearly express the peculiarities of the relationship between war and morality. Analyzing the main conceptual discourses about war, it is argued that in some of them the acceptance of the legitimacy of war does not make sense with the logic of the watershed between war and morality. Analyzing the 44-day War separately for the first time in the context of the principles of the conception of just wars, it is argued that Azerbaijan’s military aggression against Artsakh was actually accompanied by a gross violation of many of these principles, despite the propaganda efforts of the Azerbaijani side to claim the opposite.

Burdens of History, Ethics of Engagement: German Film and the Afghan War

Based on the analysis of two contemporary German films on the war in Afghanistan – Auslandseinsatz (Till Endemann, 2012) and Zwischen Welten (Feo Aladag, 2014) – through the philosophical lens of the ‘just war theory’, this article discusses how the classic genre of the ‘boots on the ground’ war film is used to reflect on the ethical justifiability of military force in the context of Germany’s strategic culture at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The article argues that these two films are paradigmatic examples of a new and specifically German subgenre of the war film I suggest calling the ‘humanitarian military film’ that has its roots in the particular historical constellation that led to the development of the country’s current military culture.

African Ethics, Personhood, and War

In this article, I look at the African theory that the formation of personhood is relevant to the morality of war. I start by justifying the project of decolonizing the ethics of war. Then I proceed to clarify that some of the African theories that relate to personhood and war should not be taken at face value, but that the concept of personhood does play a role in the morality of war. I then provide examples of how this concept is relevant for jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum. Keywords: African Ethics; Personhood; Just War Theory; Jus ad Bellum; Jus in Bello; Jus Post Bellum

Proportionality, Defensive Alliance Formation, and Mearsheimer on Ukraine

In this article, I consider the permissibility of forming defensive alliances, which is a neglected topic in the contemporary literature on the ethics of war and peace. Drawing on the jus ad bellum criterion of proportionality in just war theory, I argue that if permissible defensive force requires that its expected harms must be counterbalanced by its expected goods, then, permissible defensive alliance formation seems to also require that its expected harms must be counterbalanced by its expected goods, as the latter can result in much the same consequences as the former. Moreover, due to the incommensurability of values in play when making proportionality judgments, I argue for a value pluralist understanding of the criterion. On this view, defensive alliance formation is proportionate if the expected gains in certain values (goods) intuitively justify the expected losses in others (harms) when compared to the alternative expected value trade-offs of not allying. To explore the implications of my theoretical claims I consider them in relation to John Mearsheimer’s influential account of the causes of the Russo-Ukrainian War. On this account, the West’s strategy to assimilate Ukraine and Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership post-annexation of Crimea were disproportionate because the expected harms were unjustified when compared to the alternative expected goods and harms of forgoing Ukrainian membership of NATO. This does not imply that Russia’s aggression is just, but it does imply that the West and Ukraine are partially responsible for the war and that they acted impermissibly in attempting to expand/join NATO. Keywords: Proportionality, alliances, just war theory, Ukraine, Mearsheimer

Ethics of War And Peace: An Approach in the Matter of Religious Texts, International Law and No-Governmental Organizations

Savaş ve barış olgusu, başlangıçtan günümüze insanlık tarihini şekillendiren önemli bir konudur. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma insanların, ulusların, niçin savaştıkları, mensuplarının çokluğu nedeniyle büyük dinlerin ve günümüz evrensel yaklaşımlarının savaşı önleme ve barışı sağlama hususundaki hukukî ve ahlâkî sınırlarının neler olduğu ve bu soru(n)lara barış eğitiminin çözüm sunabilme imkânlarını problem edinmiştir. Bu bağlamda teorik olarak savaşın meşruluğu, ahlâkî ölçüsü, barış yoluyla çözümü, çatışmalarda sivillerin hakkı, hukuku, kayıplarının engellenebilirliği; dinlerin özellikle İslâm’ın savaş, barış yaklaşımları, hukukî, ahlâkî, toplumsal sınırları; uyulacak kurallar açısından evrensel yaklaşımlar, çözüm arayışlarından barış hareketleri, barış eğitimi konuları sosyolojik bakış açısından literatür taraması yöntemiyle tartışılmıştır. Bu çalışmayla savaşın önlenmesi ve barışın sağlanması hususlarında çözüm önerilerinin sunulması amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçlarında; dinlerin zorunlu durumlarda savaşa izin vermekle birlikte teşvikte bulunmadığı, teşvik, çağrı söylemlerinin dinlerin ilahi kaynağı yerine din temsilcilerinin dini anlama, algılama, yaşantı biçimlerini yansıttığı; arka planında farklı ekonomik, politik, sosyolojik saikleri meşrulaştırmak için dini araç olarak kullandıkları gibi bulgulara ulaşılmıştır. İslâm’ın tutumu; savaşı önleme ve savaş halinde hukukî, insanî değerleri öncelemedir. Uluslararası hukuk güçlü devletlerce şekillendirilmekte ve onların lehine işlemekte, şeklî bağlılık göstermekten öteye geçememektedir. Uluslararası sözleşmelerde/beyannamelerde, barış eylemlerinde kamuoyunun dikkati çekilse de emperyalist güçleri, silah üreticilerini engellemekte cılız kalmaktadır. Barışı sağlamaya yönelik ülkelerde akademik, içerikli ve sistemli barış eğitiminin örgün, yaygın eğitim kurumlarında verilmesinin ve yaygınlaştırılmasının dinlerin, özellikle İslâm’ın barış mesajlarının metotlu işlenmesinin önemli yöntem/imkân olabileceği anlaşılmaktadır.

МОИСТСКОЕ ОТНОШЕНИЕ К ВОЙНЕ: ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ К ПЕРЕВОДУ

Chapters 17–19 of the Mozi are among the earliest philosophical texts – not only in the Chinese tradition, but in world philosophy as well – concerning the ethics of war and the theory of just war. Their text is of paramount importance for the study of ancient Chinese ethical and political thought. The article serves as a foreword to the publication of their first complete and commented translation from the ancient Chinese into Russian. For the first time in Russian sinology, the author presents a critical edition of their original text. The article, which precedes the translation, analyzes the dating, purposes of writing, textual characteristics, composition and content of these chapters.

Combatants, Masculinity, and Just War Theory

Over that last several decades the ethics of war has grown into a major subfield in philosophy at the same time as large literatures have developed on the relation between gender and war as well as feminist approaches to the ethics of war. This article aims to contribute to these literatures and to bring them into closer contact. It argues that canonical just war theorists such as Grotius, Pufendorf, Vattel, and Walzer rely on appeals to masculinity to help ground the obligations of soldiers to participate in war upon command. This appeal helps them overcome their otherwise weak arguments for the political subordination of soldiers, or what I call the Internal Problem of the soldier. It also helps explain a problem that has vexed contemporary ethics of war scholars, namely, the supposed equal right to kill combatants in war, or what I call the External Problem of the soldier. If this is true, then just war theorists should be much more concerned with the gender and war literature and find common ground with feminists who have treated the problem of the political standing of soldiers as a philosophical priority.