David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (4):382 - 414 (2009)
Just war theory is a difficult, even paradoxical, philosophical topic. It is not just that warfare involves large-scale, organised, deliberate killing, and hence might seem the very paradigm of immorality. The just war tradition sharply divorces the question of whether or not it is permissible to resort to war – the question of jus ad bellum – from the question of how and against whom one may inflict harm once at war – the question of jus in bello. As Michael Walzer notes,1 this separation of jus in bello from jus ad bellum means that we can meaningfully talk of an unjust war being fought justly, and vice versa: soldiers defending against aggression might nevertheless be criminals for the way in which they do it; while soldiers prosecuting an aggressive war, provided they fight it in the right way, are without culpability. This paper will draw upon the morality of individual self-defence to explain certain important features of the traditional jus in bello: the permissibility of killing, even by soldiers who lack justice on their side; the principles that govern surrender and the taking of prisoners of war; and the principle of discrimination between soldiers and civilians. Our explanation will not leave all aspects of the jus in bello undisturbed: it has consequences that are revisionary in at least some respects, this being the upshot of trying to explain the jus in bello in individualist terms. Partly because of such consequences, approaching the morality of war in individualist terms is neither straightforward nor uncontroversial.2 But we are prepared to accept..
|Keywords||Just war theory Principle of discrimination Jus in bello|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Bradley J. Strawser (2010). Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles. Journal of Military Ethics 9 (4):342-368.
Similar books and articles
Judith Lichtenberg (2008). How to Judge Soldiers Whose Cause is Unjust. In David Rodin & Henry Shue (eds.), Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford University Press 112--130.
Torkel Brekke (ed.) (2006). The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective. Routledge.
David Rodin & Henry Shue (eds.) (2008). Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. OUP Oxford.
Brian Orend (2004). Kant's Ethics of War and Peace. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (2):161-177.
Yitzhak Benbaji (2009). The War Convention and the Moral Division of Labour. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (237):593-617.
Karsten J. Struhl (2006). Can There Be a Just War? Radical Philosophy Today 2006:3-25.
Joseph Betz (2005). Proportionality, Just War Theory, and America's 2003–2004 War Against Iraq. Social Philosophy Today 21:137-156.
Christopher Toner (2010). The Logical Structure of Just War Theory. Journal of Ethics 14 (2):81-102.
Jeff McMahan (2004). The Ethics of Killing in War. Ethics 114 (4):693-733.
Added to index2009-07-03
Total downloads92 ( #44,458 of 1,893,548 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #73,963 of 1,893,548 )
How can I increase my downloads?