Just War Research Articles

O analiză comparată a teoriilor militare ale lui Clausewitz și Liddell Hart și a aplicabilității acestora în războiul modern: perspective din Sri Lanka și Ucraina

The celebrated idea of Prussian war strategist Carl von Clausewitz regarding conventional warfare played a dominant role up to the First World War in the West. In his seminal work “On War”, Clausewitz posits: “If you want to overcome your enemy, you must match your efforts against the power of resistance!” In a way, his idea was akin to annihilating the enemy’s army in major battles. However, this idea was challenged by British military strategist Basil Henry Liddell Hart in his book, titled “The Strategy”, by proposing a different military theory called “Indirect Approach”. The objective of this paper is based on making a comparative analysis between Clausewitz and Liddell Hart regarding the utility of their military theories in modern warfare. While taking a methodology based on a comparative analysis of the utility of the two doctrines, this paper explores the effectiveness of those military strategies against the current asymmetries in modern warfare. To buttress the reliability of this research, the examples from the Ukrainian war and the Sri Lankan civil war between 1990 and 2009 will be examined. The main objectivity of this paper lies in creating a novel discussion on the merits and demerits of Clausewitz and Basil Liddell Hart’s theories of war in contemporary warfare. The results emerging from this research will demonstrate the relevance of re-reading both Clausewitz and Liddell Hart in an era where the orthodox idea of warfare is at stake.

A Comparative Analysis of Clausewitz and Liddell Hart’s Military Theories and their Applicability in Modern Warfare: Insights from Sri Lanka and Ukraine

The celebrated idea of Prussian war strategist Carl von Clausewitz regarding conventional warfare played a dominant role up to the First World War in the West. In his seminal work “On War”, Clausewitz posits: “If you want to overcome your enemy, you must match your efforts against the power of resistance!” In a way, his idea was akin to annihilating the enemy’s army in major battles. However, this idea was challenged by British military strategist Basil Henry Liddell Hart in his book, titled “The Strategy”, by proposing a different military theory called “Indirect Approach”. The objective of this paper is based on making a comparative analysis between Clausewitz and Liddell Hart regarding the utility of their military theories in modern warfare. While taking a methodology based on a comparative analysis of the utility of the two doctrines, this paper explores the effectiveness of those military strategies against the current asymmetries in modern warfare. To buttress the reliability of this research, the examples from the Ukrainian war and the Sri Lankan civil war between 1990 and 2009 will be examined. The main objectivity of this paper lies in creating a novel discussion on the merits and demerits of Clausewitz and Basil Liddell Hart’s theories of war in contemporary warfare. The results emerging from this research will demonstrate the relevance of re-reading both Clausewitz and Liddell Hart in an era where the orthodox idea of warfare is at stake.

War and Peace in Game of Thrones as An Epic Narrative

This study aims to examine the war and peace themes in the TV series Game of Thrones, which can be considered as an epic a popular culture narrative. Epics’ themes are of war, adventure and chivalry and they reproduce discourse on values, morality, war and peace though one or more protagonists. Epics, traditionally, construct war discourse by concepts like just war, war ethics and honor, and peace discourse by absence of war. In this study, Game of Thrones, has been examined in terms of war and peace themes via Thematic Analysis. Results revealed that Game of Thrones, somewhat differs from traditional epic narratives. Although classical themes like “just war discourse” pops on and off throughout the show, it is also emphasizes that war is not a glorious act. Showing conflicting perspectives of the warring parties, narrative of the show refutes many narratives that serves as justification of war. Moreover, in Game of Thrones universe, peace is not built on the absence of war. Narrative emphasized that non-conflict is not sufficient but a just administration is necessary for peace. In this context, peacebuilding in the Game of Thrones manifests itself in a way that converges with Galtung's conceptualization of peace.

Incoherences and Incompatibilities: Just Peace and Just War in Contemporary German Protestantism

This article revisits some of the main tenets and problems of the Just Peace concept as developed in the German Protestant Church, showing how it is beset by incoherences, ironical returns of expanded violence, as well as the problem of abstraction: once the Just Peace concept is applied to concrete problems, it runs dry. The article then examines some recent contributions made under the wider umbrella of ‘peace ethics’, showing that attempts to combine the Just Peace and bellum iustum are bound to fail. It then retraces the present shift to Just War thinking that reorders the basic terms, whilst also retaining some of the tenets of the Just Peace approach. Some refinements of these developments are indicated.

Just War and Judgment in Fratelli Tutti

For decades the papal tradition has renounced the term ‘war’ as something around which to build an ethical approach. One can sympathize with this: resort to war seems the consequence of ethical failure and brings in its train a host of brutalities including rape, torture, and murder that harm both victims and perpetrators. But that view of ‘war’ is an incomplete representation of the possibilities of the uses of force to secure legitimate political goods. Thus the popes have struggled to maintain a clear voice in the face of abject tragedies like the Russian invasion of Ukraine: on the one hand, Pope Francis condemns war in an almost absolute manner; on the other, he recognizes the legitimacy of Ukrainian defensive uses of force. In so doing, of course, he merely abides the so-called ‘just war theory’ he seems to have discarded. My contribution will focus on the current state of the just war in Catholic teaching. I will maintain the state remains where it has been since at least the middle of the twentieth century: skeptical about the capacity of states to judge in terms of international law, but cognizant of their right to defend themselves against ongoing aggression.

Permissible Boycotting, Liability, and Intention

Abstract Philosophers have begun exploring justifications, such as liability and lesser-evil justifications, for consumer boycotting that are rooted in just war theory. The libertarian challenge holds that even morally objectionable consumer boycotts are nonetheless morally permissible in the sense that doing their constituent acts violates no rights or duties: consumer choice, information sharing, and advocacy are already permissible actions; boycotters do not acquire any special permissions that they did not already possess. I argue that even if consumers’ activities are generally permissible, they can become impermissible when done with certain intentions. Liability-based accounts of permissible boycotting should accept the view that intention is relevant to permissibility. Accepting this view marks a discontinuity between mere consumer choice and boycotting, and a discontinuity between permissible and impermissible boycotting, strengthening the argument that liability-based and lesser evil principles may sometimes be necessary for the permissibility of some consumer boycotts.

Eco-sabotage as Defensive Activism

AbstractI argue for the conditions that eco-sabotage (sabotage involving the protection of animals or the environment) must meet to be a morally permissible form of activism in a liberal democracy. I illustrate my case with Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya’s oil pipeline destruction, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s whale hunt sabotage, and the Valve Turners’ pipeline shut-off, climate necessity-defense. My primary contention is that just as it is permissible to destroy an attacker’s weapon in self- or other-defense, it is permissible to engage in some forms of eco-sabotage. Taking inspiration from just war theory, I use the conditions of just cause, reasonable chance of success, proportionality, necessity, and discrimination to both conceptualize eco-sabotage as defense and illustrate the justificatory burden the eco-saboteur must meet. Often eco-sabotage is doubly pro-tanto wrong because it is illegal and involves property destruction. Overcoming these hurdles is particularly difficult because in seemingly bypassing democratic means of dispute resolution, the eco-saboteur seemingly coerces the other members of society by forcing idiosyncratic views upon them. Non-anthropocentric eco-sabotage grounded in defense of animal rights has mixed results regarding the democratic objection just described. I argue that anthropocentric eco-sabotage, grounded in defense of human rights, has the best chance of overcoming this objection, provided a persuasive case can be made for its reasonable chance of success. Passing a reasonable chance of success also causes problems for non-anthropocentric eco-sabotage grounded in species defense, while non-anthropocentric eco-sabotage grounded in defense against animal suffering has a lighter justificatory burden.

The Problem of Justifying Torture in Analytical Ethics in the 1970s-1980s

The article reconstructs a brief period of intensive debates on the legitimacy and justification of torture in the early 1970s to the mid-1980s. It is shown that the emergence of the discourse on the morality of torture was influenced by the following factors. Firstly, the formulation of the “dirty hands” dilemma, which in the analytical tradition became a crucial tool for analyzing the relationship between ends and means. Secondly, the establishment of a theoretical and applied field of philosophical research known as the just war theory. Although it should be acknowledged that the transfer of heuristics from the just war theory as a means of argumentation in favor of torture proved to be a philosophical deadlock, it allowed for the exploration of possibilities and limitations of new theoretical developments in the field of moral philosophy, which is always a necessary stage for the reiteration of debates.

Этика – война – медицина: научный портрет проблемы в современных публикациях

Background: The search for the meaning of war, the justification of violence, the acceptance of guilt and other moral problems worried Russian thinkers of the 19th century. Russian religious philosophy considers morally justified only war in defense of the highest spiritual shrines, which I.A. Ilyin, N.A. Berdyaev, L.P. Karsavin, A.A. Kersnovsky and others call the defense of the home-land, life and peace. Aim: To assess research interest in the problems of ethics of war, ethics of military medicine, biomedical ethics in the intellectual field of open databases of scientific publications and offer a predictive plot of this scientific direction. Materials and methods: A comparative analysis of open databases of scientific publications RSCI, NEB, CyberLeninka was carried out. The study of literature sources in the problem field under consideration made it possible to determine the directions of the research search using vectors – keywords "ethics", "war", "military medicine". Publications from the open CyberLeninka data-base were used and analyzed as a model scientific network database. Quantitative (number of publications) and qualitative (annota-tions) indicators were studied. To identify attitudes towards the ethical problems of war, a sociological survey of medical university students was conducted, N = 154, average age of respondents (19.2 ± 1.9) years. Standards of confidentiality and autonomy were respected for respondents. Results: An analysis of the distribution of scientific publications by area of the international OECD classifier demonstrates the in-terest of researchers in the problem field of "Philosophy, ethics, religious studies" in 2020–2024. In all search options (using the key-words "War and Ethics", "War and Medicine", "Military Medicine") there are a larger number of publications in this area than in other social or sociological sciences. In the search query "war and ethics", there were 2 times more such publications than others. A pilot sur-vey of future doctors confirms the interdisciplinary connection between the ethics of war and medicine. Conclusion: The study demonstrates modern scientific interest in the ethics of war when studying problems related to war and mili-tary medicine. It would be of interest to conduct a more detailed study of the relationship between the ethics of war and medical ethics (bio-ethics) as an element of the ethical training of future doctors for professional activities in extreme conditions of peace and war.

War Becoming Phantasmal: A Cognitive Shift in Organized Violence beyond Traditional Limits

The entirety of human existence suggests multiple war theories and competing belief systems on what war is and how it can or cannot be exercised, even if we often are preoccupied with the current framework. Premodern societies differed from modern ones on whether humans or something divine or supernatural control the contexts and outcomes of war. Collectively, our species retains a firm appreciation of the assumed limits of what constitutes organized violence for political, social, or cultural aims, depending on the group and context. Yet in the twenty-first century, we may finally have set into motion the seeds of an unfamiliar, potentially incomprehensible, and likely transformative pathway where artificial intelligence or transhuman modifications may reveal what is called a “phantasmal transformation of war.” Complexity science explains reality and war so that earlier attempts—particularly those of the classical or natural science period and earlier prescientific attempts—are illuminated as insufficient or irrelevant outside of narrow or contextual applications. Today, Western militaries remain wedded to what is explained as a “Newtonian-style worldview” for understanding war, with select terms assimilated from complexity science and others ignored entirely. Indeed, modern military theorists assume an almost ideological devotion to what is largely a pseudo-scientific, static mode of framing war. Humans paired with certain advanced technology may also redefine war beyond previous physical domain and kinetic circumstances, including new manifestations in space, in cyberspace, and through accelerated human-machine teaming arrangements. Such novel conflict may in some applications exceed both human design and comprehension, potentially existing in planes or manifestations that are either undetectable by humans, rendered incomprehensible by select human actors, or potentially in modes that exceed the witting participation and awareness of our species.

Waging a Just and Ethical War – Contemplating Saint Augustine, ‘Just War’ theory, Gaza, and other Philosophical Notions

In this paper, the author presents a basic overview of a range of philosophical approaches to the notion of war from the early ancient Greek traditions relating to war, to the conservative tradition. The desktop research methodology employed combines a review of existing literature with a focus on analysis, synthesis, and ethical considerations. By utilizing a diverse range of sources and analytical techniques, it aims to contribute to a better understanding of a ‘just and ethical war’ and provides insights for further research. A range of philosophical ideas through the ages are briefly discussed followed by discussion on the Just War Theory. The role of abolitionists per se is not discussed since this work is then traversing St. Augustine’s philosophy and ethical stance apropos the waging of war which exemplifies the justice and peace aspect in restoring order out of chaos. He calls for an ethos of humanness to prevail when conducting war based on the intention to preserve harmonious co-existence between peoples. Augustine argues that waging any war should be avoided where this is possible, however, a just war allows for the acquisition of virtue which then hopefully leads to justice. The morality of waging war is severely compromised once narcissistic vested immoral interests are the primary motivators for belligerence and no genuine peaceful resolution to conflict has been seriously sought as is seemingly the case in the current Gaza war and its prevailing atrocities. Predictably various philosophers have investigated the subject of ‘just war’ and over time have determined the criteria of jus ad bellum (justice toward war), jus in bello (justice in war), and also jus post bellum (justice after war). It is clear that it is imperative to operate off a strong ethical basis when opting for a state of war to exist and to strongly consider preserving the safety and security of non-belligerents at all costs.

“When you have to shoot, shoot!” Rethinking the right to life of combatants during armed conflicts

Abstract Does targeting combatants really provide a military advantage during an armed conflict? The limitations on the use of force against civilians and means and methods of warfare are well developed under contemporary international humanitarian law (IHL), but the issue of targetability of adversary combatants remains underdeveloped. This paper builds on contemporary developments in international human rights law and moral just war theory to offer a revised lex ferenda look at the basic principles of IHL through the internalization of the value of the lives of combatants. It is argued that such a reading of IHL would allow for a rejection of the automatic necessity of targeting combatants, and hence give due consideration to the value of life of combatants (both adversary combatants and own combatants) in the evaluation of the use of force during armed conflicts, including through reduced military advantage, force protection, and adjusted proportionality analysis.

THE CONCEPT OF “JUST WAR”: HORIZON, STRUCTURE, CRITICISM

The concept of “just war” has become politically and scientifically relevant due to the collapse of the “European international system of sovereign states”; in the modern situation of “world disorder” (R. Haas), it becomes an instrument of public rhetoric; the inevitable consequence is the degradation of meaning - philosophical research, thus aimed at the formation of the concept, becomes relevant. Understanding the structure, meaning and scope of the concept of “just war” involves putting it in context; the goal, therefore, is to construct a horizon. The main task is to clarify the meaning of the concept of “just war” as a phenomenon of modernity. The concept of “just war” belongs to the field of ideas, that is, understanding presupposes going beyond the methodological framework of disciplinary science - the trans-boundary can be ensured by using methods developed by philosophical hermeneutics to analyze and identify the meaning of ideas and concepts, as well as understanding the ways in which they have power and determine reality. It is revealed that the reduction of the political to morality and the direct application of moral principles to politics necessarily leads to the degradation of war: the rejection of the “non-discriminatory concept of war” in favor of the concept of “just war” removes any restrictions from armed violence. It is demonstrated that war remains necessary on its periphery as normalization, police operation, “humanitarian intervention; the concept of ’just war’ is a tool for ensuring security. It is concluded that the anti-terrorist war as a police operation to ensure the security of the global liberal political order is the conceptual core of the modern concept of “just war”.

A cultural theory of the culture wars

AbstractWe provide the first account of the culture wars in the political psychology and public opinion literature based on a theory of culture. Using innovative measures of grid‐group cultural theory (CT), we identify the cultures associated with ideological and partisan identifications in annual U.S. national surveys from 2011 to 2022, a unique data set of 24,870 respondents. As hypothesized, we find that the culture wars occur not just between ideologues and partisans but among them as they draw support from distinct, relatively stable yet shifting cultural coalitions. Egalitarian and, less often, fatalistic liberals and Democrats battle against individualistic and, less often, hierarchical, conservatives and Republicans. As hypothesized, fatalists are the least reliable coalition partners, and, as expected, they gravitate Republican and conservative in 2017, after Trump's election. However, fatalists who are strong partisan identifiers never defect. Moreover, our hypothesis that fatalist attraction to Trump would drive defections in their political identification is largely invalidated. Instead, fatalists mostly flee Trump in our aggregate analysis as well as in subanalyses of strong and weak ideological and partisan identifiers. In 2016 and 2018–2022, it appears that independent fatalists cause fatalists to gravitate liberal and Democrat. Unexpectedly, hierarchists also go liberal and Democrat in 2022, in apparent reaction to Trump's multifront attacks on the 2020 election that he lost. We identify the basis for cultural coalitions that can end particular culture wars, including the most significant one now occurring between egalitarians and individualists, and conclude with suggestions for further research.

A Phronetic Ethics of Securitization

Abstract Intervening in recent debates on normativity in securitization theory, I draw on Aristotle’s notion of phronesis and Morgenthau’s formulation of prudence to articulate an ethical theory that takes seriously the idea that securitization is a deeply intersubjective process. First, I critique Rita Floyd's extant “just securitization theory,” which develops universal moral criteria akin to those of just war theory. While insightful, I argue that both her approach to the study of securitization as an empirical phenomenon and to moral theory are flawed. Then, I develop a novel theory by articulating how securitizing actors ought to exercise phronesis as a mode of ethical reasoning rather than a set of rules to follow. Securitizing actors exercise phronesis when they continuously deliberate about the ends of their actions, consider potential long-term consequences, utilize both abstract knowledge and experience, engage in critical self-reflection, and practice restraint. Throughout the paper, I redeploy the “universal” just securitization concepts of just cause and proportionality as rhetorical devices to help stimulate phronetic judgement.

Humanitarian Success Post Bellum

The likelihood of success criterion makes armed humanitarian action politically and morally prohibitive. Yet, the just war tradition is designed to confront egregious moral evils. To help reconcile these tensions, this essay questions the applicability of the success principle to armed humanitarian intervention. This questioning provokes reflection on how the just war theory’s high threshold for success can rarely be achieved in the direct aftermath of humanitarian interventions. A low likelihood of success post bellum leads to the suggestion that the full demands of just war theory’s tranquilitas ordinis definition of peace ought not to be required in the aftermath of armed humanitarian intervention. Guaranteed failure may be a more useful criterion than likelihood of success for interventions aimed at ending acute state-sponsored human rights atrocities.

Success in Battle—Failure in War

This essay addresses the likelihood of “success” in two dimensions: (1) success in war and (2) success on the battlefield. The terms “war” and “battle” are often used interchangeably and the men and women who won the battles are often told that the war was lost. As a polity discusses the Just War Tradition (JWT) in relationship to a forthcoming war, the term “success” is squishy, malleable, quantifiable only in comparative terms, and politically charged. The definition of battles is the win and loss of men, material, and moral. These can be measured. The two terms should not be used carelessly, and the relationship between the two needs to be more carefully considered.

Atomic Signaling: Exploring Likelihood of Success and Military Necessity through the Bargaining Model of War

Did the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II meet the military necessity and likelihood of success criteria of the Just War Theory? Many scholars and ethicists have argued that they did not. We examine the decision through the rationalist models of war preferred by international relations theorists. We introduce a simple version of the bargaining model of war and tease out its essential differences with the models of war (and, therefore, military necessity) used by most Just War Theorists. Then, we reconstruct the decision to drop the bomb on Japan, focusing especially on information states, preference sets, and operational realities, to show that, if the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not meet military necessity and likelihood of success criteria, no other kind of military activity can.

When You Can’t Afford to Miss: Likelihood of Success and Discrimination in Cyberwarfare

Offense dominance in cyberspace is taken by many as a given. However, this is not a consensus position, with several scholars arguing that cyberattacks that produce meaningful kinetic effects on their prescribed targets are enormously costly and painstakingly slow. This poses an issue at the nexus of Just War Theory’s likelihood of success and discrimination doctrines. Initiating (or escalating) a conflict should only occur if the initiator has a reasonable likelihood of success. That success may be made more likely by overlooking the requirement that weapons be able to discriminate between targets and non-targets, especially under circumstances in which time is of the essence. Furthermore, even if non-target systems are not destroyed, their infection can facilitate the discovery of a cyberweapon, inspiring copycat weapons and attacks.

Carl von Clausewitz and Foucault on war and power

ABSTRACT Carl von Clausewitz's political theory of war was the source of many disagreements over readings of its most popular theses. Foucault viewed it as part of a broader political-legal discourse of sovereignty, which underlies modern biopower. Foucault's contemporary commentators try to develop his position by arguing the analogy between the discourse prevailing in Clausewitz's time and the contemporary neoliberal discourse and technological revolution on the battlefield, which create a new order of power. However, postmodernists focusing on showy stylistics in their assessments rely on a mythologized narrative about Clausewitz, reducing his theories to a discourse of war as a way for nation-states to conduct foreign policy. In this article, Clausewitz shows that his theory goes much deeper and provides a critical perspective on the relationship between war and politics. The dialectical structure makes it possible to understand war as a historically variable but constantly policy-dependent phenomenon.