Just War Research Articles

The Inconsistent Reduction: An Internal Methodological Critique of Revisionist Just War Theory

AbstractThis article argues that the reduction of the morality of killing in war to the morality of killing in self-defense by ‘reductive-individualist’ revisionist just war theories is inconsistent, because when those theories apply the moral notion of self-defense to the morality of killing in war, they do not preserve the two conceptions of the “individual” inherent in this notion. The article demonstrates this inconsistency in two steps: First, it disentangles the two conceptions of the individual inherent to the notion of self-defense, namely (1) that the individual is an “entity” potentially bearing a right to self-defense (unlike, e.g., groups) and (2) that the individual is a “particular,” where “particular” signifies that every human is different from every other human. The conception of the individual as a “particular” is tied to the idea that a justification grounded in a rule of self-defense is necessarily “concrete,” in the sense of referring to individually given and specific perceptions or cases, as opposed to “abstract,” in the sense of being detached from specific perceptions or cases. The article then demonstrates that reductive individualism reflects the first notion of the individual, but not the second. Due to the “loss” of the individual as a “particular”, the reductive-individualist reduction of the morality of killing in war to the morality of killing in self-defense is inconsistent, and hence its justification of killing in war grounded in self-defense is not concrete. Since such a justification must be concrete, reductive individualism cannot offer a justification for belligerent killing.

“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.

A cultural theory of the culture wars

A cultural theory of the culture wars

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.

Принципы справедливого ведения войны: обзор и основные проблемы

The article is devoted to the principles of just warfare (jus in bello), which are highlighted within the framework of the just war theory developed in the West. A brief description of these principles is given, and some of the main problems associated with their interpretation are raised. It is argued that the principle of distinction should be understood as a principle of responsibility, prohibiting not only intentional, but also any culpable harm to civilians and objects, while the principle of proportionality should be formulated in such a way as to take into account not only the balance of benefits and costs of specific military operations, but also the probability (risk) of not achieving such a balance. It is argued that in addition to these two principles, the principle of military necessity should be highlighted within the framework of jus in bello. Finally, it is demonstrated that attempts in the scientific literature to justify the possibility of departure from the principles of just warfare are in fact attempts to find morally convincing priorities of some principles over others, but these priorities have not yet been fully formulated.

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

Abstract Research 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.

How Ukraine’s Just War Challenges Just Peace Theory

Theologians from various religious traditions have spoken out recently in favor of the just peace theory as a replacement for the traditional just war theory. This new theory severely limits the possibilities for nations to wage just wars. However, since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing conflict, the academic debate on just peace theory has fallen silent. The necessary self-defense of Ukraine shows how replacement of just war with just peace faces major problems. Besides pragmatic problems, the just peace theory has important theoretical problems from a Roman Catholic point of view. This essay deals with those problems and offers an alternative.

Hierarchy and war

AbstractScholars have written extensively about hierarchical international order, on the one hand, and war on the other, but surprisingly little work systematically explores the connection between the two. This disconnect is all the more striking given that empirical studies have found a strong relationship between the two. We provide a generative computational network model that explains hierarchy and war as two elements of a larger recursive process: The threat of war drives the formation of hierarchy, which in turn shapes states' incentives for war. Grounded in canonical theories of hierarchy and war, the model explains an array of known regularities about hierarchical order and conflict. Surprisingly, we also find that many traditional results of the international relations literature—including institutional persistence, balancing behavior, and systemic self‐regulation—emerge from the interplay between hierarchy and war.

“MLK's functional philosophy of non‐violence”

AbstractThe fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. held a moral philosophy of non‐violence is well known. What is less familiar is that he made various exceptions to his prohibitions on violence. Given the absolute language he often used in condemning violent acts, he can give the impression of inconsistency in his ethics. The reality, however, is that his moral framework possesses both consistency and functionality. That is, it holds together logically and has practical usefulness. The key to understanding King is to view his moral philosophy through the lens of Virtue Ethics, not rule‐based ethics. This approach to a philosophy of non‐violence provides value and utility to adherents of both pacifism and Just War Theory, a difficult feat.

Navigating the theories in the nexus between war and peace

This research examines the relationship between war and peace within the realm of international relations, drawing from a diverse array of theories. It investigates conflict, ranging from power dynamics to ideological disputes, while also evaluating the ethical dimensions of the Just War theory. Through the application of the Just War theory to the dynamic interplay between war and peace as a theoretical framework, this study underscores the vital significance of fostering peaceful dispute resolution, upholding ethical standards in warfare, and undertaking comprehensive post-conflict reconstruction efforts. Employing a historical research design, the study gathers data from secondary sources including journals, books, and ancient encyclopedias, ensuring the credibility of its analysis. Utilizing a descriptive method of data analysis, the research employs deductive logic to maintain a coherent framework and ensure balanced interpretation. Despite disagreements among theories, the study prioritizes accuracy to draw appropriate conclusions. The findings of this study reveal the profound interconnectedness between war and peace, highlighting how conflict arises from a myriad of factors including power struggles, ideological differences, and diplomatic failures. Furthermore, the ethical evaluation of war through the Just War theory provides valuable insights into the moral complexities surrounding armed conflict and its implications for peace-building efforts. Considering these findings, several recommendations are proposed to address the persistent challenge of achieving lasting peace amidst armed conflicts. Emphasizing diplomacy as a primary approach to conflict resolution, prioritizing ethical standards in warfare, and fostering peace education to cultivate values of tolerance and non-violent conflict resolution from an early age are key strategies identified for promoting sustainable peace. By offering recommendations for proactive conflict prevention and strategies in international cooperation, this research aims to contribute to the global pursuit of a more equitable, harmonious, and peaceful world order. Through its rigorous analysis and actionable insights, the study seeks to inform policymaking and advocacy efforts aimed at fostering sustainable peace on a global scale.

The United Nations and Sustainable Peace Enforcement in the Rwandan Genocide

The study examined the rationale behind the conflict between two major ethnic group who shared considerable cultural similarities which would have engendered nation-building but turned out to create around for massive killings termed Rwanda Genocide. It also interrogated the narrow UNAMIR mandate which was limited to monitoring, assisting and investigating crime and violence arising from the Arusha Accord. Descriptive study method was utilized which focused on the character and actions of the personages that were involved in all actions which led to sustain and failed in halting the genocide. The ‘just-war theory was the framework for evaluating the ineptitude of the UNO in halting the Genocide. The practice of Anthroprometry deepened segregation between the ethnic groups. The failure of nation-building escalated by the French colonialist exacerbated. The UNO failed to act as at when due perhaps because Rwanda was not considered of strategic importance to the holder of veto powers at the UNO. It then posited the need for Peace-Enforcement rather than Peacekeeping in every situation where the UN facilitates an Accord. This is because when two or more groups are in conflict or at war, it means peace is absent. It would be a grand deception to pursue ‘peace-keeping’ where nonexisted. Every UNO mission must have its communication radio and interpreters to avoid language problem which complicated the problem in Rwanda. There should be a sociological understanding of the problem they have gone resolve in order to be strategic in their operations by knowing hardliners who are ready to sabotage the mission.

The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success)

ABSTRACT: This article considers the useful application of just war theory to the Vietnam War and to others after. It describes the triumph of the theory, which has brought with it more questionable uses.

DESTRUCTION AND DISPOSSESSION OF THE CANAANITES IN THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

In Joshua 6:17–21, we encounter the first significant discussion in the book of the related concepts of setting the Canaanites apart for destruction and driving them out of the land. The supposed “genocide” of the Canaanites is one of the most vexing questions in the entire Old Testament and a leading reason that many people dismiss the Old Testament as hopelessly barbaric, so an examination of the issues here is in order. We will discuss this in five discrete sections: (1) the idea of setting people or things apart to the Lord for destruction; (2) the idea of driving out the Canaanites from the land; (3) the concept of “Yahweh war” (also known as “holy war”); (4) the ethics of Yahweh war; and (5) the New Testament and violence.

Killing to Cling to Power? The Dilemmas of Israeli Prime Minister

Hamas's strategic surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, is not only a military and intelligence failure on the part of Israel, but it also casts doubt on the capacity of the Israeli Prime Minister to provide the security needs of Israelis. What this paper does is explore the complexities and dilemmas of Israel’s war on Gaza despite domestic pressure to halt the Gaza war to enable the release of hostages, the call on the coalition government to account for the needless deaths of Israelis on the fateful October 7, 2023 attack and the growing pressure abroad to respect humanitarian law of war in Gaza. The war nevertheless continues unabated while Hamas is ducking for cover with the multiracial captives. The multilevel demands on the Israeli PM and his right-wing coalition have ramifications on the regime’s legitimacy, a bleak future for the two-state solution, and the general implication of the war on global politics. This paper utilised the Diversionary Theory of War to explain the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. The paper argues that Hamas attacked Israel to thwart the normalisation process between Israel and Saudi Arabia, while the Israeli prime minister is using the Gaza war as an alibi to boost his reelection bid and to divert the attention of Israelis from the toxic domestic politics to cling to power.

The ethics of voluntary ethics standards

AbstractMany nongovernmental forms of business regulation aim at reducing ethical violations in commerce. We argue that such nongovernmental ethics standards, while often laudable, raise their own ethical challenges. In particular, when such standards place burdens upon vulnerable market participants (often, though not always, SMEs), they do so without the backing of traditional legitimate political authority. We argue that this constitutes a structural analogy to wars of humanitarian intervention. Moreover, we show that, while some harms imposed by such standards are desirable, others are best thought of as a form of collateral damage. We thus look at the well‐developed literature on just war theory for inspiration and find that the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello contain many insights that can be fruitfully adapted to the case of nongovernmental standard‐setting. Consequently, we propose the Ius ad Normam—a set of principles that should guide would‐be standard‐setters in assessing whether imposing those burdens is ethically justifiable in particular cases. We also discuss how powerful multinational businesses often act simultaneously as standard‐takers and standard‐setters and explore the normative implications of this dual role.

Two-Stage Games of Complete but Imperfect Information: Application in International Trade with Tariff

Trade relationships are very complicated especially given the battles between Keynesian and Neo-liberal economic views on the issue. Game theory and its application in international trade can provide a simplistic but important method for quantifying the benefits of trading. In this paper, we intend to use two-stage games of complete but imperfect information in the trading context among two and three countries and compare it with the non-trading country. The purpose of this work is to apply a two-level game model of complete but incomplete information in game theory and apply it to international economics in the context of customs trading. The basic literature for this work is “Game Theory for Applied Economists” by Robert Gibbons. Glenn W. Harrison and E. E. Rustrom on Trade War, Trade Negotiation, and Applied Game Theory. We provide mathematical models and eventually provide the interpretation in a broader context.

Justice at the End of War

This paper aims to critically analyse two conflicting ethical orientations that dominate the debate on the issue of justice in the post-war phase: minimalism and maximalism. The former approach narrows down the scope of the third aspect of just war theory, known as jus post bellum (justice after war), to the restoration of peace and the prevention of future hostilities. In contrast, the latter emphasizes the importance of achieving political objectives via military triumph and the use of force. Furthermore, it underscores the need for conscientious state-building after a military triumph in order to guarantee the welfare of individuals and the effectiveness of the justly established state. In line with Immanuel Kant's philosophy, it argues for minimalism by giving importance to upholding the rights of civilians and prisoners of war while striving to achieve enduring peace. In addition, it analyzes the fundamental concepts of Orend's maximalist approach to peace accords. These principles give priority to social justice, equality, human rights, democratic government, and social and economic progress. Orend's criteria for a fair peace settlement after a morally justified conflict include the vindication of rights, proportionality, discrimination, punishment, compensation, and rehabilitation. It also discusses the justifiability of regime change in this context. In line with Walzer, it contends that instances in which a new regime will be significantly better compared to the old one should be the only ones in which regime change is appropriate.

Domestic Diversionary War and Conflict Endurance in Weak States: The Houthi Conflict in Yemen (2004 – 2010)

ABSTRACT There is a vibrant literature on civil war onset and endurance. Previous research has demonstrated that weak states are unlikely to use diversionary measures given the greater likelihood of their defeat. I offer a theoretical contribution to the literature by disentangling why this is particularly the case. Using insights from the Houthi conflict in Yemen between 2004 and 2010, the article shows how the conflict, first initiated as a diversionary operation, increased the Houthi movement’s grievances and galvanised an intra-regime power struggle leading to conflict endurance. The article, thus, offers one of the few exploratory applications of the domestic diversionary war theory in weak states.

How conventional arms control failures caused the Russo-Ukraine War

ABSTRACT What role did conventional arms control (CAC) agreements failures play in Russia's decision to invade Ukraine? Using a process tracing and counterfactual mixed methodology analyzing Russia's invasion motivations, this article attempts to answer the question by assessing Russian strategic policies, proposals, and arms control agreements. These demonstrate that Russia, seeing its sense of “indivisible security” being violated, sought to adjust or establish new CAC agreements to address a growing conventional military imbalance between NATO and Russia. Having failed to establish a fixed and stable conventional military balance through CAC, and as Ukraine edged closer to NATO membership, Russia resorted to the use of force shortly after their December 2021 proposals were not accepted. The article concludes by suggesting that this case supports arms racing and arms-control related causes of war theories, and that dissonant perceptions of the actual or ideal military balance can lead to conflict.

The Role of International Law and Diplomacy in Inter-State Relations: Implications for Afghanistan and American War Relations

This study examines the role of international law and diplomacy in interstate relations, with implications for American-Afghanistan relations. Specifically, the study sets out to interrogate whether US war relations on terror in Afghanistan has reduced terrorism in the country; ascertain how US counter-terrorism strategic relations in Afghanistan undermined jus in bello principles of proportionality and discrimination; and determine how US strategy failure in its Afghanistan’s relations undermined its reconstruction and peace-building efforts. By adopting the Just War Theory (JWT), the paper analysed the dynamic nature of US-Afghanistan relations, following the 9/11 attacks, with findings revealing that the US had an incoherent strategy in its war relations in Afghanistan, which ultimately led to its failure to restore peace, promote democracy and human rights.