The ethics of military action are at the heart of political debate in the West today - this fascinating book explores the philosophical implications of and for this hugely topical contemporary debate. Fotion gives a clear account of just war theory, presenting it as a useful device in helping us make decisions about what we should do when war appears on the horizon.
Terrorism poses an undeniable threat to societies throughout the world today. Martyr terrorism, the fastest growing form of terrorist activity, and arguably the most effective, has become a regular occurrence. But how has terrorist activity evolved in the last 100 years, and what are the ethical costs of terrorism? In this informative book, three philosophers, all experts on the ethics of conflict, examine the various definitions of terrorism and the nature of martyr terrorism. Through accounts of terrorist campaigns, from 19th century Russian terrorism, to the 20th century campaigns in Ireland, Israel and Greece, and contemporary campaigns in Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq, this fascinating book explores the ethical implications of terrorism from a philosophical perspective. Setting out the social, psychological and political causes of terrorism, the book interrogates the cases for and against terrorist activity in terms of just war theory. Articulate, provocative and stimulating, this timely book is an ideal introduction to an important contemporary social issue.
This book offers a renewed defense of traditional just war theory and considers its application to certain contemporary cases, particularly in the Middle East. The first part of the book addresses and responds to the central theoretical criticisms levelled at traditional just war theory. It offers a detailed defense of civilian immunity, the moral equality of soldiers and the related dichotomy between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and argues that these principles taken together amount to a morally coherent ethics of war. In this sense this project is traditional (or "orthodox"). In another sense, however, it is highly relevant to the modern world. While the first part of the book defends the just war tradition against its revisionist critics, the second part applies it to an array of timely issues: civil war, economic warfare, excessive harm to civilians, pre-emptive military strikes, and state-sponsored assassination, which require applying just war theory in practice. This book sets out to reaffirm the basic tenets of the traditional ethics of war and to lend them further moral support, subsequently applying them to a variety of practical issues. This book will be of great interest to students of just war theory, ethics, security studies, war and conflict studies, and IR in general.
When is war just? What does justice require? If we lack a commonly-accepted understanding of justice – and thus of just war – what answers can we find in the intellectual history of just war? Miller argues that just war thinking should be understood as unfolding in three traditions: the Augustinian, the Westphalian, and the Liberal, each resting on distinct understandings of natural law, justice, and sovereignty. The central ideas of the Augustinian tradition (sovereignty as responsibility for the common good) can and should be recovered and worked into the Liberal tradition, for which human rights serves the same function. In this reconstructed Augustinian Liberal vision, the violent disruption of ordered liberty is the injury in response to which force may be used and war may be justly waged. Justice requires the vindication and restoration of ordered liberty in, through, and after warfare.
This new Handbook offers a comprehensive overview of contemporary extensions and alternatives to the just war tradition in the field of the ethics of war. The modern history of just war has typically assumed the primacy of four particular elements: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, the state actor, and the solider. This book will put these four elements under close scrutiny, and will explore how they fare given the following challenges: • What role do the traditional elements of jus ad bellum and jus in bello—and the constituent principles that follow from this distinction—play in modern warfare? Do they adequately account for a normative theory of war? • What is the role of the state in warfare? Is it or should it be the primary actor in just war theory? • Can a just war be understood simply as a response to territorial aggression between state actors, or should other actions be accommodated under legitimate recourse to armed conflict? • Is the idea of combatant qua state-employed soldier a valid ethical characterization of actors in modern warfare? • What role does the technological backdrop of modern warfare play in understanding and realizing just war theories? Over the course of three key sections, the contributors examine these challenges to the just war tradition in a way that invigorates existing discussions and generates new debate on topical and prospective issues in just war theory. This book will be of great interest to students of just war theory, war and ethics, peace and conflict studies, philosophy and security studies.
As the war in Iraq continues and Americans debate the consequences of the war in Afghanistan, the war on terror, and the possibility of war with North Korea and Iran, war is one of the biggest issues in public debate. Andrew Fiala in The Just War Myth challenges the apparently predominant American sentiment that war can be easily justified. Even most Democrats seem to hold that opinion, despite the horrific costs of war both on the people being attacked or caught up in the chaos and on the Americans involved in carrying out the war. The Just War Myth argues that while the just war theory is a good theory, actual wars do not live up to its standards. The book provides a genealogy of the just war idea and also turns a critical eye on current events, including the idea of preemptive war, the use of torture, and the unreality of the Bush Doctrine. Fiala warns that pacifism, too, can become mythological, advocating skepticism about attempts to justify war.
This book examines the moral choices faced by U.S. political and military leaders in deciding when and how to employ force, from the American Revolution to the present day. Specifically, the book looks at discrete ethical dilemmas in various American conflicts from a just war perspective. For example, was the casus belli of the American Revolution just, and more specifically, was the Continental Congress a "legitimate" political authority? Was it just for Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Japan? How much of a role did the egos of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon play in prolonging the Vietnam War? Often there are trade-offs that civilian and military leaders must take into account, such as General Scott’s 1847 decision to bombard the city of Veracruz in order to quickly move his troops off the malarial Mexican coast. The book also considers the moral significance and policy practicalities of different motives and courses of action. The case studies provided highlight the nuances and even limits of just war principles, such as just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, last resort, likelihood of success, discrimination, and proportionality, and principles for ending war such as order, justice, and conciliation. This book will be of interest for students of just war theory, ethics, philosophy, American history and military history more generally.
The Justice of War: Its Foundations in Ethics and Natural Law puts normative ethical theory at the forefront in its discussion of the justice of war. Situating the modern theory of just war in its historical context, Richard A. S. Hall gives full attention to natural law, a mainstay of just war theory. Hall considers the American philosopher Josiah Royce’s implicit theory of just war with its suggestion of a fourth component of just war theory (in addition to jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum), namely, jus ad pacem—justice/law for or about peace—concerning the prevention of war and the maintenance of peace. This book addresses, and answers affirmatively, the following questions raised by just war theory: Can just war theory be rationally defended against its realpolitik critics? Can there by such a thing as a just or moral war? The book aims at showing the doubters and critics that just war theory is a viable alternative to both the political realism of realpolitik and pacifism. In brief, war can be morally justified, though under very restrictive conditions.
This book questions when, why, and how it is just for a people to go to war, or to refrain from warring, in a post-9/11 world. To do so, it explores Just War Theory (JWT) in relationship to recent American accounts of the experience of war. The book analyses the jus ad bellum criteria of just war—right intention, legitimate authority, just cause, probability of success, and last resort—before exploring jus in bello, or the law that governs the way in which warfare is conducted. By combining just-war ethics and sustained explorations of major works of twentieth and twenty-first century American war writing, this study offers the first book-length reflection on how JWT and literary studies can inform one another fruitfully.
