Just War Research Articles

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.

Discourses on War and Peace in a Professional Ethics Classroom

Empty seats, uninterested faces and distracted student behaviour are general characteristics of the classroom where humanities subjects are taught to students of science and technology. In this article, I discuss my experience of teaching a course, Professional Ethics, that is generally discarded by the students as ‘an additional burden’ made mandatory by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for securing a bachelor of technology degree from Indian institutes of higher education. The teaching note documents the initial attitude of students towards the course content, the process of their transformation into imbibing the essence of the course, and finally the outcomes of the adapted teaching method. Socratic questioning on memes and news reports was used to sensitise the students towards the ethics of war and weapon development. In other words, the teaching process was a discourse of peace building by engaging students in sustainability dialogues.

“Only a God Can Save Us Now”: Why a Religious Morality Is Best Suited to Overcome Religiously Inspired Violence and Spare Innocents from Harm

It is common to hear the refrain that religion is a major cause of violence today. And this claim is not without merit. Religious differences can fuel animosity and lead to societal conflict. On the other hand, scholars have increasingly recognized the role of religion in overcoming societal divides and helping people to heal and forgive. This paper will examine the latter capacity of religion to minimize the harms that occur during violent conflicts. It will be argued that secular ethical theories often fail to provide any principles or foundations that can help moderate passions, alleviate tensions, or provide frameworks for what is licit in war. In fact, the world views of terrorists and secular ethicists of war are often strikingly similar. Religious ethicists, on the contrary, have often encouraged practices (prayer for one’s enemies, forgiveness) and provided principles (dignity of every human, non-combatant immunity, just war theory) that can help moderate the violent tendencies of war and bring about a more peaceful and equitable resolution. While religion is not entirely off the hook for promoting violent conflict, religion can provide ethical frameworks and principles that help minimize the harms of conflicts and promote world peace.

Just War Theory and Literary Studies: An Invitation to Dialogue by Ty Hawkins and Andrew Kim (review)

Just War Theory and Literary Studies: An Invitation to Dialogue by Ty Hawkins and Andrew Kim (review)

존 롤즈(J. Rawls)의 전쟁과 핵무기에 대한 이론

This article tries to examine John Rawls’ theories of war and nuclear weapons especially from the perspective of international law. Rawls's theory of war is based on the just war theory of Western tradition. It rejects realism and does not adopt pacifism. Rawls's theory of jus ad bellum is similar to the position of current international law in that it recognizes a war of self-defense and exceptionally a war of humanitarian intervention. HIs theory of jus in bello largely reflects the principles of existing International Humanitarian Law(IHL), such as the distinction between combatants and civilians, protection of human rights, and restrictions on military necessity. However, Rawls deviates from international humanitarian law in that it permits military action against civilians in the case of the so-called supreme emergency. Regarding nuclear weapons, it differs from the existing International Court of Justice (ICJ) theory of nuclear permitting by permitting nuclear weapons only to well-ordered peoples and presenting human rights standards for nuclear use. In addition, by evaluating the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings as great wrongs, it presents a precedent in international humanitarian law for the use of nuclear weapons. The official position of the United States regarding the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings was that it was a justifiable measure to end the war early. However, Rawls rejects the U.S. government's arguments and says that the atomic bombing was a representative case of the failure of so-called 'statesmanship'. This article attempted to support Rawls's perspective from the perspective of international humanitarian law. The claim that the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings were intended to reduce the casualties of U.S. soldiers does not comply with the principle of military necessity under international humanitarian law. Additionally, the claim that it was an inevitable choice to reduce the damage to Japanese civilians that would result from a prolonged war is not valid in that there was room for a third option to end the war. The dropping of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombs reflected America's political interest for the victory of unconditional surrender and ending the war before Russia (the former Soviet Union) entered the war. This did not comply with the principles of military necessity or humanitarian necessity of international humanitarian law.

Some Legal Aspects of Western Military Aid to Ukraine

The article deals with the some legal aspects of Western military aid to Ukraine. The first part briefly analyzes the Russian Federation's attack on Ukraine from a "just war" perspective. The following part is devoted to individual perspectives of different branches of international law on military aid to Ukraine - the law of neutrality, ius ad bellum, ius in bello, issues of co-belligerency and state responsibility for complicity in internationally illegal actions. The conclusion summarizes the findings and gives an answer to the question why Western aid to Ukraine mostly does not violate the norms of international law.

Dedoxifying Syrian War Rhetoric through the Lens of Just War Theory in A Land of Permanent Goodbyes

Dedoxifying Syrian War Rhetoric through the Lens of Just War Theory in A Land of Permanent Goodbyes

War and Peace Journalism in Mass Shootings Coverage - Case Study of a School Shooting in the U.S. Uvalde

Research objective: Analysis of the problem of using the theory of war and peace journalism in reporting mass shootings in the American media on the example of a school shooting in Uvalde. 
 Problem and methods: The article answers the question whether theories about war and peace journalism can be helpful in the analysis of media coverage of mass shootings. The text analyzes how the leading media broadcasters in the U.S. (CNN and Fox News) use war- and peace-oriented mechanisms. The article uses research methods standard for social sciences and humanities, including content analysis with elements of framing analysis, comparative analysis and the case study. 
 Process of argumentation: The starting point for the research was the theories on war and peace journalism by Johan Galtung. The reason for undertaking the research was also the record number of mass shootings in the U.S. in 2021 and the significant importance of the Uvalde shooting in the American public debate on gun control in 2022. The article focuses on the first week of coverage of the shooting. 
 Results: American media use war journalism more often. Coverage is influenced by ideological profile and political affiliation. Political issues and the reconstruction of events come to the fore. Contexts such as victims, solutions, roots of the problem or fate of the perpetrator are discussed less frequently. The shooting in Uvalde became an instrument in the political conflict in which the media took part. 
 Conclusions, innovations, and recommendations: War journalism mechanisms favor media polarization in bipartisan conflict conditions and help show sensational events in a 24-hour cycle. In turn, the mechanisms of peace journalism support reporting on the perpetrator, victims and potential solutions. The article intends to increase awareness of various ways of publicizing extraordinary events and political conflicts and serve for more profound research in the future.

Mapping the factors behind ongoing war stress in Ukraine-based young civilian adults.

While the literature on well-being and stress following natural disasters is well-developed, it is less so when it comes to ongoing war experiences. Between September and October of 2022, 223 Ukraine-based civilian adults (156 women and 67 men) completed a survey measuring symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), peritraumatic experiences, paranoia, quality of life, death anxiety, anxiety about weapons of mass destruction and depression (i.e. assumed 'war consequence' factors), as well as perceived social support, resilience, loneliness and expected military support from the West (i.e. assumed 'buffer' factors). Our exploratory structural equation model (SEM) suggests that Perceived Social Support predicted fewer PTSD Symptoms and more Peritraumatic Experiences. The regression modelling, however, shows that Perceived Social Support was also positively correlated with Peritraumatic Experiences. Highlighting the need for a civilian war stress buffer disruption theory, we argue that when composed of one's circle of family and friends, social support could likely mean greater exposure to war stressors through the mutual sharing of ongoing war experiences with no end in sight. Such a possible war stress sharing deterioration effect would imply that Perceived Social Support may compound peritraumatic distress if the support in question is offered by those facing the same grim reality.

“In Defence of Jus Ad Bellum Criteria”

AbstractIn this contribution, I defend the standard list of jus ad bellum principles. In The Ethics of War and the Force of Law: A Modern Just War Theory, Uwe Steinhoff endorses only three principles of jus ad bellum (right intention, just cause, and proportionality) and claims that the others are redundant. I argue that, although fundamentally all jus ad bellum principles can be reduced to proportionality, in practice it is vital to retain the main jus ad bellum criteria as separate principles.

Hezbollah’s Diversionary War in Lebanon: Continuity and Change in the Threat Perception

Hezbollah intervened in the civil war in Syria when the Assad regime was under threat of overthrow. Its intervention caused criticism from Lebanese actors and therefore required the organization to find legitimate foundations upon which to base its involvement. Discourse and rhetoric were the first elements that changed following the organization’s decision to intervene. Hezbollah revised its traditional discourse of security, which refers to Israel as the main threat, in 2013 and added an external enemy, the takfiris, which referred to fundamentalist groups in the civil war, as a new threat. However, it returned to its traditional discourse due to the domestic criticisms that followed. This study aims to explain the changing rhetoric of Hezbollah during the civil war in Syria through the frame of the diversionary theory of war. This theory claims that Hezbollah used a diversionary tactic to justify its intervention in the civil war and invented an external enemy as a threat to Lebanese security and territorial integrity.

Getting on to the Same Page: War, Moral Fundamentalism, and Convention

Uwe Steinhoff’s The Ethics of War and the Force of Law contains an extended critique of ‘moral fundamentalism’, or the project of uncovering an individualist ‘deep morality’ of war governed by the same moral principles and rules that govern ordinary moral life, as well as a more positive account of war that depicts it as a social practice. Much of Steinhoff’s account is indebted to a series of claims involving the standing to blame, reciprocity, and the necessity and proportionality conditions on self-defence. On all these claims, Steinhoff is open to challenge. First, he is arguably over-dependent on ‘standing to blame’ considerations. Second, his commitment to reciprocity is under-explained. Third, the necessity condition does not clearly explain how conventional elements explain the formation of defensive standards. Fourth, there are problems in explaining how the distinct defensive conventions adopted by distinct communities can actually be made to get on to the same page when these communities go to war with each other.

Animals and the ethics of war: a call for an inclusive just-war theory

Animals have been almost entirely absent from scholarly appraisals of the ethics of war. Just-war theory concerns when communities may permissibly resort to war; who may wage war; who they may harm in war; and what kinds of harm they may cause. Each question can be complicated by animals’ inclusion. After introducing just-war theory and the argument for an animal-inclusive just-war theory, this paper reviews ethical appraisals of war on animals’ behalf and wars against animals. It then turns to consider harm to and use of animals in war. It concludes by considering questions in the ethics of war beyond just-war theory as traditionally construed.

PERANG AFGANISTAN ANTARA AMERIKA SERIKAT DAN TALIBAN TAHUN 2021: ANALISIS TRINITAS PERANG CLAUSEWITZ

This article analyzes the Afghanistan war between the United States and the Taliban in 2021 through the Clausewitz war trinity in terms of the success or failure of the war. Analysis used a qualitative-explanative approach and literature study methods in collecting data, and using the Trinity of War theory as an analytical tool. The results of the study show that the trinity of war aspect, which consists of the people, the military and the government, has a major influence on the outcome of the US war in Afghanistan. The US decision to withdraw all its troops and allies in the Afghanistan war is considered a form of failure in this war. Nevertheless, this article does not deny that these conditions do not describe the failure to achieve the US political goals themselves, namely the assassination of the leader of the international terrorist organization (al-Qaida) Osama bin Laden as the main objective of the war

Précis of the Ethics of War and the Force of Law: A Modern Just War Theory

Précis of the Ethics of War and the Force of Law: A Modern Just War Theory

Making Peace with the Devil: The Problem of Ending Just Wars

In this paper, we draw attention to an unintended but severe side effect of just war thinking: the fact that it can impose barriers to making peace. Investigating historical material concerning a series of conflicts in China during the early twentieth century, we suggest that operating in a just war framework might change actors' identities and interests in a way that makes peacemaking an unavailable action. But since just war theory places significant normative constraints on how long wars can be continued, it might thus be self-defeating, in the sense that those who adopt it may undermine the very goals which it is supposed to serve. Whether this finding calls for a revision of existing ethical frameworks governing warfare will depend on whether there are possible alternatives to just war theory that perform better at reining in unjust violence.

Post War Justice: Jus Post Bellum for Just War and Peace

This paper aims to address a key topic of speculation within political philosophy, namely the Just War Theory. The Just War Theory works to ethically restrain wars based on principles listed out in jus ad bellum (reasons to go to war) and jus in bello (conduct during war). As such, the theory dominated by the debate between the ‘traditionalists’ and ‘revisionists’ who are concerned about the integration of jus post bellum as the third branch of just war theory and feel it is better suited to the domain of international politics and security. This paper explores this lacunae over the neglect of jus post bellum (post war justice) within the just war discourse. By identifying the limitations of a minimalist jus post bellum and this misrepresentation of peace with security, this paper defends a maximalist account of jus post bellum and also situates post war justice as a necessary third branch of the Just War Theory. The challenges to taking such an extensive stance on post war justice are also addressed. As the first two branches of just war theory have been codified, the neglect of the post war stage leads to unrestrained war endings and ad-hoc solutions. Any just war theory needs to recognize the legitimacy of the third branch of post war justice as well, as only then can the Just War Theory function to restrain wars.

The Mirror Reflection of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine in The Western Balkans: Opening New Conflicts as a Distraction

Background: The Western Balkan region has long struggled under extensive pressure and influence from Russia and the West. World developments have occasionally echoed tensions among nations in the region, including a prolonged EU and NATO membership process, which has increased the possibility of Russia’s influence, especially after the aggression in Ukraine. This article analyses the increase in Russia – Ukraine tensions and its direct correlation with the increase of tensions in the Western Balkans through hybrid war methods understood through Zhyhlei and Syvak’s definition: “a fragmentary and situational combination of different methods and theories of war, their integration into different spheres, especially political, religious, ideological, ethical, economic and informational.”5 The higher Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the higher the pressure on Serbia to fuel tensions in the Western Balkans. This pressure comes through direct threats, media propaganda, and influence on parallel structures and financial support for CSOs, through which Russia increases its influence in the Balkans through Serbia as its closest ally. This influence strategy is particularly important for Russia to undermine the power and influence of the West and NATO in former Yugoslav states, especially those with open conflicts which serve as a global distraction from a possible power decline in Ukraine. Methods: Through discourse and thematic analysis, this article analyses local, regional, and international media, data, and publications of international organisations, press releases of international and regional institutions, conclusions of distinguished scientists and heads of state over the current situation in the Western Balkans, and interviews with representatives of CSOs and institutions in Kosovo. The influence of Russian aggression in Ukraine, with Russia’s pressure to increase tensions in the Western Balkans, has been analysed in the framework of Western unipolar influence and Russia’s attempts to return to multipolarity. Results and Conclusion: Among others, it is concluded that Russian influence is present in the Western Balkans and seeks to destabilise the region by activating passive conflicts from the past or opening new conflicts to defer international attention from the power decline in Ukraine, which did not produce the results that Russia had expected. This is possible through Serbia, Russia’s closest ally. The solution to prevent Russian influence and any future conflicts among Balkan states is to accelerate NATO and EU’s integration of Western Balkan countries.

Animals in International Relations: a research agenda

Animals are integral to world politics, yet largely neglected in International Relations (IR). This Special Issue (SI) aims to address this gap and offers a collection of original research articles that investigate issues pertaining to sovereignty, power, diplomacy, the ethics of war, justice and emancipation, environmental governance, activism and international law. The articles make animals visible within those realms, raise novel questions and develop approaches through which the specific role(s) of animals and human-animal relations in international politics may be theoretically understood and empirically explored. They open a conversation between IR and Critical Animal Studies (CAS). The SI contributes to a broader understanding of the complex and interconnected nature of human-animal relations, and therefore to the reorientation of IR towards a post-anthropocentric perspective of world politics that renders the field better equipped to understand and address our current Anthropocene predicament. To introduce the SI, this article starts by addressing the invisibility of animals in IR and why this is problematic. It then provides an overview of the articles included in the SI and concludes by outlining a research agenda for the study of animals in IR.

To Do, To Die, To Reason Why: Individual Ethics in War, written by Victor Tadros

To Do, To Die, To Reason Why: Individual Ethics in War, written by Victor Tadros