Just War Research Articles

A Catholic Pope and a Rawlsian Statesman: War and Peace through the Lens of Non-Public and Public Reason

A Catholic pope and a Rawlsian statesman respectively represent religious and political leaders who confront the reality of war and face the challenge of responding to it. A political decision during conflict based exclusively on religious or secular justifications will be unconvincing in a contemporary plural public space. John Rawls’s solution to this dilemma was to offer justifications based on public reason grounded on political values and not on religious or secular values that support non-public reason. However, restraining religious arguments can ignite passionate religious objections when the decisions of government contradict the demands of their religious values. Hence, this paper argues against an exclusive position and highlights the importance of a nuanced approach that engages religious and political perspectives. The arguments are presented by engaging both Catholic and Rawlsian responses to war by focusing on just war theory and the role of a statesman.

Human enhancement drugs and Armed Forces: an overview of some key ethical considerations of creating 'Super-Soldiers'.

There is a long history and growing evidence base that the use of drugs, such as anabolic-androgenic steroids, to enhance human performance is common amongst armed forces, including in Australia. We should not be surprised that this might have occurred for it has long been predicted by observers. It is a commonplace of many recent discussion of the future of warfare and future military technology to proclaim the imminent arrival of Super Soldiers, whose capacities are modified via drugs, digital technology and genetic engineering, in ways that increase their performance exponentially. This is what some observers have referred to as the "Gladiator Model" wherein the aim is to create soldiers able to perform feats of which ordinary citizens are not capable. One key aspect of this "gladiator project" is the use of illicit drugs to enhance performance. Could we use drugs, such as steroids or amphetamines, to enhance performance? Should we use such drugs? In this paper we explore the ethics of creating Super Soldiers, and raise issues of consent, coercion and the extent to which such use is permitted or condemned by just war theory. We conclude that much will depend on the extent to which such use is harmful to the soldiers themselves and this is still an open question.

Resistant ecologies

AbstractIn South Lebanon, war is lived as landscape, environment, milieu. Those pursuing life in such quarters do what they can to make‐live, and their lifelines are often as vitalizing as they are deadly: tobacco farmers ally themselves with what they call a “bitter crop” that flourishes in an arid war zone, while pastoralists walk in explosive fields with their mine‐evading goats. These multispecies alliances flourish because they can survive the deadly infrastructures of war. Dwelling alongside two steadfast families in the borderlands of South Lebanon, this ethnography of life in war moves away from tropes of trauma to grasp a militarized world from within the lived terrain of its operations. Neither green‐tinged utopia nor total devastation, these resistant ecologies make being possible in an insistently deadly region. Thinking life from disastrous war zones forces anthropological theory to reckon with harsh ethnographic realities while bringing to light unsung alliances of hope for life ongoing.

System Structure, Unjust War, and State Excusability

Abstract This article seeks to bridge the interdisciplinary gap between just war theory (JWT) and international relations (IR) by introducing into the former discipline key theoretical and empirical insights from the latter discipline. Specifically, the article argues that traditional JWT is deficient as a normative account of war because it constitutes what Kenneth Waltz calls a “unit-level” theory, operating at the level of the individual state and evaluating the morality of a given war solely by reference to a list of state-level factors (e.g., just cause, proportionality, etc.). In this manner, JWT fails to take account of the systemic, or structural, correlates of international armed conflict. In particular, it fails to incorporate insights from the leading mainstream IR theories of neorealism, institutionalism, and constructivism in regard to how the international distribution of material capabilities, institutions, and ideas codetermines the nature and likelihood of war. To remedy these inadequacies of JWT, a “multilevel” approach to the morality of war is put forward according to which unit-level factors are required to be weighted by systemic factors. Pursuant to this approach, if a state has initiated or participated in a war that is assessed as unjust through the unit-level lens of traditional JWT, the state itself can still sometimes be partially excused for that war once systemic factors have been considered.

War Ethics in Tamil Literature

The war has been going on from the Sangam age to the modern day. However, there are certain rules that are followed for waging war. There are many more ethics followed in the Sangam warfare systems than in the methods of warfare of the 21st century. Tamil literature describes the war tradition of the Tamils as a number of morals. Among them, literary works such as Tolkappiyam, Purananooru, Purapporul, Venba Maalai, Pathiruppathu, and Thirukkural deal with the war tradition and ideology. The ancient scriptures bear testimony to the fact that the Tamils lived as incomparable in love and character. Ethics for waging war, protocols, and all war crimes that exist among nations today deserve attention. This article seeks to examine how battlefields, warriors, warfare processes, combat management, and the suffering caused by war are mentioned in the Sangam war stories, and how the principles of global warfare exist in today's times.

The Weight of the Decision: Just War Thinking in Congolese Armed Conflict as Seen Through the Lens of Lieve Joris’s The Rebels’ Hour

Ethnic violence and armed conflict continue to ravage the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), particularly its eastern provinces, nearly two decades after the official 2003 end of the Congolese ‘Wars of Liberation,’ which have cost over four million lives since 1996. Traditional Western mindsets—grounded in the doctrine of the just war theory, which informs much of international humanitarian law and international criminal law—find the ethical underpinnings of this violence extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fathom. Through her novel, The Rebels’ Hour, Belgian author and journalist Lieve Joris has, albeit unintentionally, graced us with an eloquent case study with which to explore the 1996–2003 Congo Wars through a just war theory lens. This article briefly describes the historical and doctrinal contexts of Joris’s novel, and traces in Just War terms the story she tells of its protagonist, a fictitious rebel commander. After discussing the implications of the just war theory posed by the situation Joris describes, this article concludes that the West can draw a moral lesson from Africa, and recommends Joris’s novel to Western readers as an excellent entrée to a better ethical understanding of African armed conflicts.

A Contest of Civilizations: Exposing the Crisis of American Exceptionalism in the Civil War Era

American exceptionalism is as old as the republic itself, and Andrew F. Lang's important study surveys the history of the idea during the mid-nineteenth century. Americans of the era believed their country had a unique destiny as a civilized republic and beacon of freedom, even as slavery persisted, the Union dissolved, war erupted, and reconstruction ensued. Writing within the spirit of the “global turn,” Lang seeks to explain “diverse concepts of nationhood” held by Civil War–era Americans, while relying heavily on Abraham Lincoln's rhetoric as a framework. Focusing on political thought, constitutional values, and foreign policy, Lang offers insights into how the events of the era—and Americans' perception of them—fit within an international context. Lang divides the book into antebellum, wartime, and postwar sections. The first sets up the paradox of freedom and slavery—the United States by the 1850s, in Lang's words, was “the world's most liberal democracy and its largest slaveholding country”—and explains how U.S. slaveholders came to occupy such an important position in national politics (p. 72, emphasis in original). The second section begins with secession, which ensued as the culmination of this paradox and embodied diverging interpretation of democracy and American exceptionalism. The Confederacy rested on the idea that a slaveholding republic restrained democracy's excesses and preserved order, while the Union upheld the principle that preserving the nation and emancipating the enslaved fulfilled the founders' vision and offered, in Lincoln's words, “the last best hope of earth” for democratic civilization. Just war theory and notions of civilized warfare not only pervaded wartime debates over military strategy but also shaped the aftermath of war, including the possibilities for enforcing reconstruction. In section three of the book, Lang perceptively shows how northerners during the Reconstruction era sought to restore local civilian control to the conquered South, to prevent the sort of violence and social upheaval that had engulfed evolutionary France. “Employing a moderate occupation concomitant with demobilization demonstrated to the world how civilized republics ended civil wars,” Lang concludes (p. 305). Americans had a further opportunity to distinguish themselves from “less civilized” nations when Maximilian's French-supported rule in Mexico collapsed in 1867, resulting in his execution. The following year in the United States, in contrast, former radical abolitionists led by Gerrit Smith led the effort to end the prosecution of former Confederate president Jefferson Davis, a symbolic gesture that portended national reunion and the end of Reconstruction. Americans would not be in the business of executing their political opponents.

Just War in Political Thought: From Cicero to Grotius / Siyasal Düşüncede Haklı Savaş: Cicero'dan Grotius'a

The concept of just war rises on a "just war" doctrine, which has important historical moments, developed on the "justification potential" of war. A better understanding of the just war theory is possible by examining these historical intellectual foundations. For this purpose, this study starts from the ideas of Cicero, who is accepted as one of the most important intellectual premises of the just war theory, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and then the views of Vitoria and Grotius, who represent the transition of this concept to the modern period, on just war will be examined. In the last part, the current intellectual and practical problems related to the concept and the extent reached by the relevant concept will be discussed roughly. In this context, it is thought that examining the periodic intellectual contributions made to the just war theory in the historical process will also provide a healthier evaluation of today's discussions about the concept and the content of the theory.

The (Il)legitimacy of Cybersecurity. An Application of Just Securitization Theory to Cybersecurity based on the Principle of Subsidiarity

This contribution applies Floyd’s just securitization theory (JST) to cybersecurity and develops an own version of JST focused on subsidiarity from the critical discussion of this application. Floyd’s JST pursues a subsidiary approach. It emphasizes that securitization is only legitimate if it has “a reasonable chance of success” to avert threats to the satisfaction of “basic human needs”. From this perspective, cyber-securitization would be only legitimate if it protects critical infrastructure, which is a too narrow scope. Whilst Floyd’s JST focuses exclusively on permissibility and needs instead of rights, I argue that there are cases in which states’ compliance with Human Rights requires the guarantee of cybersecurity, most importantly regarding the human right to privacy. Furthermore, my version of JST strengthens the principle of subsidiarity, in the sense that stakeholders directly affected by a threat should participate in securitization. In order to strengthen a kind of subsidiarity focused on the private sector, I argue for the legitimacy of private active self-defence in cyberspace and emphasize the importance of a ‘whole-of-society approach’ involving digital literacy and ‘everyday security practices’. In contrast to that, I argue that far-reaching securitization on the nation-state level can be connected to hyper-securitization. I argue that the securitization of the digital public sphere following unclear notions such as ‘digital sovereignty’ creates a ‘cybersecurity dilemma’ and a ‘societal security dilemma’. Furthermore, I argue that this kind of counterproductive hyper-securitization involves an ‘invisible handshake’ between Big Tech and governments that should be counteracted by structural desecuritization focused on subsidiarity.

The philosophy of international law of Modern Scholasticism: the theory of just war

This article analyzes the philosophy of international law of the Second, or Modern Scholasticism. The author of the article concentrates on the just war theory mainly developed by Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez. The objectives of the article are to clarify and classify the main principles of the above-mentioned theory as well as to grasp its relevance nowadays. In order to achieve these objectives doxographical, analytical as well as hermeneutical methods are applied. Based on them, the principles and rules of just war are divided into two fundamental types. The article comes to conclusion that these types correspond to the parts of contemporary just war theory entitled as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Another significant conclusion is that the vast majority of the principles of just war presented in Modern Scholasticism (e.g. just cause of the war, adversary’s warning of intended offensive actions, the inviolability of ambassadors and peaceful population, prohibition on killing prisoners of war and hostages, the compliance of reparations with the damage caused before and during the war, the illegality of religious and confessional wars) are also relevant nowadays.

Heartfelt truths: Towards an existentialist ethics of war

AbstractJust war theory appears ever more alienated from the practice it ostensibly regulates, warfare. An increasingly abstract and esoteric discourse, it can seem very remote from the mud-and-blood actualities of warfare. This is reflective of a broader disconnect between the study of, on the one hand, the ethics of war, and, on the other, the lived experience of war. Seeking to address this problem, this article asks: How can we recentre just war thinking as a ‘lived’ theory? It proposes that we can reconnect just war theory to the lived experience of warfare by restoring its historical dialogue with existentialism. It develops this position by reading just war theory through the prism of Albert Camus's writings on political violence. It concludes that Camus's political thoughts provides a set of signposts for the development of a mode of just war theorising that places that the lived experience of warfare at the heart of our ethical thinking about war.

Cinema from the End of Time:Malmkrogby Cristi Puiu and Vladimir Solovyov

AbstractArguably Cristi Puiu’s most intricate film so far,Malmkrog(2020) comprises nearly three and a half hours of intense discussions about some of the most pertinent questions of our times since the Industrial Revolution – about the ethics of war and progress, the inevitable end of history, and the elusive nature of Good and Evil – posited by the Russian religious philosopher Vladimir S. Solovyov in his seminal bookWar, Progress, and the End of History(subtitledThree Conversations Including a Short Story of the Anti-Christ) and published in 1899. The article looks at the screen rendition of Solovyov’s three dominant discourses – statist-militarist, bourgeois-liberal, and religious-philosophical – through the grid ofkatechon(or “that which restrains”) in its Biblical, and above all, in its political philosophic meaning (following Carl Schmitt, Georgio Agamben and Sergei Prozorov). Furthermore, by introducing the concept of intermedialkatechon, the article argues that while Puiu’s audio-visual rendition remains congenially faithful to the original, it transcends its allusions to the tragic 20th century, and illuminates our murky times of ubiquitous (bio-)political, social, intellectual, and above all ethical angst.

Utilitarian Contingent Pacifism and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution

For the role of utilitarianism in the ethics of war and peace, Shaw suggests there is a Utilitarian War Principle (UWP) and argues that the principles of the just war theory should be treated as intermediate principles that are subordinated to UWP. He also argues that the state should be the primary legitimate authority to wage war and holder of the right of national defense. I argue that the utilitarian approach should be specifically linked with contingent pacifism, a new understanding of pacifism from within the just war tradition, and the utilitarian contingent pacifism only endorses individual self-defense but not national defense. This finding is not only theoretically important but has practical implications for the debate on Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Utilitarian contingent pacifism supports the idealist position that Article 9 is morally significant because it makes Japan a pioneer of the new kind of pacifism.

Autonomous drone warfare

Recently, a military robot has autonomously taken the decision to attack enemy troops in the Libyan war without waiting for any human intervention. Russia is also suspected of using such kind of robots in the current war against Ukraine. This news has highlighted the possibility of radical changes in war scenarios. Using a Catholic perspective, we will analyze these new challenges, indicating the anthropological and ethical bases that must lead to the prohibition of autonomous “killer robots” and, more generally, to the overcoming of the just war theory. We will also point out the importance of Francis of Assisi, whom the encyclical Fratelli tutti has proposed again as a model for advancing towards a fraternal and pacified humanity.

Autonomous drone warfare

Recently, a military robot has autonomously taken the decision to attack enemy troops in the Libyan war without waiting for any human intervention. Russia is also suspected of using such kind of robots in the current war against Ukraine. This news has highlighted the possibility of radical changes in war scenarios. Using a Catholic perspective, we will analyze these new challenges, indicating the anthropological and ethical bases that must lead to the prohibition of autonomous “killer robots” and, more generally, to the overcoming of the just war theory. We will also point out the importance of Francis of Assisi, whom the encyclical Fratelli tutti has proposed again as a model for advancing towards a fraternal and pacified humanity.

Just Coups: A Reconsideration of Domestic Military Action

ABSTRACT Are there situations where military coups can be considered justified, such as the overthrow of a collapsing, genocidal dictatorship? I argue that under certain circumstances there is an opening for “just coups.” I propose a theoretical assessment of coups based on an adaptation of just war theory. I bring the comparative literature surrounding civil–military relations into conversation with the literature on just war theory in order to develop a theory of just coups. By adapting the categories of just war theory into jus ad coup, jus in coup, and jus post coup, I show that these categories create a framework for understanding the ethical status of coups. Doing this gives us a more subtle understanding of the problem of coups and lets us understand how a hypothetical just coup may be possible.

Jus in bello Necessity, The Requirement of Minimal Force, and Autonomous Weapons Systems

ABSTRACT In this article we focus on the jus in bello principle of necessity for guiding the use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS). We begin our analysis with an account of the principle of necessity as entailing the requirement of minimal force found in Just War Theory, before highlighting the absence of this principle in existing work on AWS. Overlooking this principle means discounting the obligations that combatants have towards one another in times of war. We argue that the requirement of minimal force is an important requirement for considering ethical uses of force. In particular, we distinguish between lethal and non-lethal purposes of use of force and introduce the prospect of non-lethal AWS before reviewing a number of challenges which AWS pose with respect to their non-lethal use. The challenges arise where AWS generate unpredictable outcomes impinging upon the situational awareness required of combatants to ensure that their actions meet the requirement of minimal force. We conclude with a call for further research on the ethical implications of non-lethal uses of AWS as a necessary contribution for assessing the moral permissibility of AWS.

To Show or Not to Show? The Depiction of Terror and Death in Nairobi

ABSTRACT This study examines the metajournalistic discourse reflected in the use of corpse images from the DusitD2 terror attack in Nairobi, Kenya, in January 2019. Drawing from concepts such as responsibility and resistance ethics, this study explores the viewpoints of Kenyan journalists and bloggers. Situated within qualitative research methodology, the findings suggest that the New York Times’ use of victims’ corpse images reflects a double standard and visual bias, and its defense of the news report can be considered an example of professional posturing. Conversely, sharing of perpetrators’ postmortem pictures produced mixed findings among audiences. While online circulation was blamed on bloggers’ inexperience, it was also seen as a sign of victory for the value of visual evidence. This study also contributes to the scholarship on use of graphic images by drawing on African ethical systems and just war theory.

The Logical Problem of Evil and African War Ethics

ABSTRACT The morality of war has been debated from a variety of perspectives. However, it has rarely been intertwined with the topic of the existence of God. Sometimes anti-theists argue that the existence of a Western Judeo-Christian God who is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect is inconsistent with the existence of evils such as war. We will argue that there is no such logical inconsistency between the God of the African traditional religions and the evil of war. First, we contend that such a logical inconsistency does not exist because God in African traditional religions is not seen as omnipotent, omniscient or morally perfect, and therefore, it would not be logically inconsistent for such a God to co-exist with the evil of war. This is mainly because African moral realism entails that war is a legitimate means for an imperfect being in an imperfect world to pursue morally permissible goals. Second, even if God is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect, when considered from the African religious viewpoint, a God of harmony, like the one in African traditional religions, can permit some evils for a greater good such as “harmony”.

Seventeenth-Century Scotism and the War Just on Both Sides.

Can a war can be just on both sides? Within the Western just war tradition, Catholic theologians traditionally held wars on both sides to be logically impossible. This view went unchallenged until questioned by two seventeenth-century Irish Franciscan Scotists. These were Aodh Mac Cathmhaoil (Hugo Cavellus) and John Punch. In this paper I lay out the Scotist theological grounds that led them to admit to the possibility of wars just on both sides. I also conjecture on possible reasons why Punch refrained from revising traditional just war theory in light of his own far-reaching theological conclusions.