Search results for 'just war theory' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Igor Primoratz (2002). Michael Walzer's Just War Theory: Some Issues of Responsibility. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (2):221-243.score: 729.0
    In his widely influential statement of just war theory, Michael Walzer exempts conscripted soldiers from all responsibility for taking part in war, whether just or unjust (the thesis of the moral equality of soldiers). He endows the overwhelming majority of civilians with almost absolute immunity from military attack on the ground that they aren't responsible for the war their country is waging, whether just or unjust. I argue that Walzer is much too lenient on both soldiers (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Laurie Calhoun (2001). The Metaethical Paradox of Just War Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (1):41-58.score: 729.0
    The traditional requirements upon the waging of a just war are ostensibly independent, but in actual practice each tenet is subject ultimately to the interpretation of a legitimate authority, whose declaration becomes the necessary and sufficient condition. While just war theory presupposes that some acts are absolutely wrong, it also implies that the killing of innocents can be rendered permissible through human decree. Nations are conventionally delimited, and leaders are conventionally appointed. Any group of people could band (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. James Pattison (2013). When Is It Right to Fight? Just War Theory and the Individual-Centric Approach. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):35-54.score: 729.0
    Recent work in the ethics of war has done much to challenge the collectivism of the convention-based, Walzerian just war theory. In doing so, it raises the question of when it is permissible for soldiers to resort to force. This article considers this issue and, in doing so, argues that the rejection of collectivism in just war should go further still. More specifically, it defends the ‘Individual-Centric Approach’ to the deep morality of war, which asserts that the (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Graham Parsons (2012). The Incoherence of Walzer's Just War Theory. Social Theory and Practice 38 (4):663-88.score: 726.0
    In his Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer claims that his theory of just war is based on the rights of individuals to life and liberty. This is not the case. Walzer in fact bases his theory of jus ad bellum on the supreme rights of supra-individual political communities. According to his theory of jus ad bellum, the rights of political communities are of utmost importance, and individuals can be sacrificed for the sake of these (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Christopher Toner (2010). The Logical Structure of Just War Theory. Journal of Ethics 14 (2):81-102.score: 720.0
    A survey of just war theory literature reveals the existence of quite different lists of principles. This apparent arbitrariness raises a number of questions: What is the relation between ad bellum and in bello principles? Why are there so many of the former and so few of the latter? What order is there among the various principles? To answer these questions, I first draw on some recent work by Jeff McMahan to show that ad bellum and in bello (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. John Forge (2009). Proportionality, Just War Theory and Weapons Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):25-38.score: 720.0
    Just wars are supposed to be proportional responses to aggression: the costs of war must not greatly exceed the benefits. This proportionality principle raises a corresponding ‘interpretation problem’: what are the costs and benefits of war, how are they to be determined, and a ‘measurement problem’: how are costs and benefits to be balanced? And it raises a problem about scope: how far into the future do the states of affairs to be measured stretch? It is argued here that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Aaron Fichtelberg (2006). Applying the Rules of Just War Theory to Engineers in the Arms Industry. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (4):685-700.score: 720.0
    Given the close relationship between the modern arms industry and the military, engineers and other professionals who work in the arms industry should be held accountable to the principles of just war theory. While they do not deploy weapons on the battlefield and are not in the military chain of command, technical professionals nonetheless have a moral duty to abide by principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. They are morally responsible both for choosing the companies (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Ineke Malsch (2013). The Just War Theory and the Ethical Governance of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):461-486.score: 720.0
    This article analyses current trends in and future expectations of nanotechnology and other key enabling technologies for security as well as dual use nanotechnology from the perspective of the ethical Just War Theory (JWT), interpreted as an instrument to increase the threshold for using armed force for solving conflicts. The aim is to investigate the relevance of the JWT to the ethical governance of research. The analysis gives rise to the following results. From the perspective of the JWT, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Shawn Kaplan (2012). Just War Theory: What Is It Good For? Philosophy in the Contemporary World 19 (2):4-14.score: 720.0
    The usefulness of Just War Theory (JWT) has been called into question in recent years for two key reasons. First, military conflicts today less frequently fit the model traditionally assumed by JWT of interstate wars between regular armies. Second, there is a perception that JWT has lost its critical edge after its categories and principles have been co-opted by bellicose political leaders. This paper critically examines two responses to these concerns which shift the locus of responsibility for wars (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Leonard Kahn (2013). Just War Theory and Cyber-Attacks. In Fritz Alhoff, Nicholas Evans & Adam Henschke (eds.), Not Just Wars. Routledge.score: 692.0
    In this chapter, I take up the question of whether one of the central principles of jus ad bellum – just cause – is relevant in a world in which cyberattacks occur. I argue that this principle is just as relevant as ever, though it needs modification in light of recent developments. In particular, I argue, contrary to many traditional just war theorists, that just cause should not be limited to physical attacks. In the process, I (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. John W. Lango (2010). Nonlethal Weapons, Noncombatant Immunity, and Combatant Nonimmunity: A Study of Just War Theory. [REVIEW] Philosophia 38 (3):475-497.score: 672.0
    Frequently, the just war principle of noncombatant immunity is interpreted as morally prohibiting the intentional targeting of noncombatants. Apparently, many just war theorists assume that to target means to (intend to) kill. Now that effective nonlethal weapons have been envisaged, it should be evident that there is no conceptual connection between intentionally targeting and intentionally killing. For, using nonlethal weapons, there could be intentional targeting without intentional killing. This paper explores the question of whether the noncombatant immunity principle (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Lawrence Masek (2002). All's Not Fair in War: How Kant's Just War Theory Refutes War Realism. Public Affairs Quarterly 16 (2):143-154.score: 630.0
  13. Joseph M. Schwartz (2004). Misreading Islamist Terrorism: The "War Against Terrorism" and Just-War Theory. Metaphilosophy 35 (3):273-302.score: 630.0
  14. Jovan Babic (2007). Non-Culpable Ignorance and Just War Theory. Filozofija I Društvo 18 (3):59-68.score: 630.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. N. Fotion (2007). War and Ethics: A New Just War Theory. Continuum.score: 624.0
    Introduction -- Just war theory -- Objections to just war theory -- Easy cases : Germany, Japan, Korea -- Harder cases : Serbia, Russia, Kosovo, Iraq -- Multiple reasons -- More problems with just war theory -- Prevention : Sri Lanka, Thailand -- Two just war theories -- Problems with just war theory I -- Problems for just war theory II -- Closing thoughts.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Jean Bethke Elshtain (ed.) (1992). Just War Theory. New York University Press.score: 624.0
    Available Again! Long before the "shock and awe" campaign against Iraq in March 2003, debates swarmed around the justifications of the U.S.-led war to depose Saddam Hussein. While George W. Bush's administration declared a just war of necessity, opponents charged that it was a war of choice, and even opportunism. Behind the rhetoric lie vital questions: when is war just, and what means are acceptable even in the course of a just war? Originally published in 1991, in (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Howard Williams (2012). Kant and the End of War: A Critique of Just War Theory. Palgrave Macmillan.score: 624.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. John J. Davenport (2011). Just War Theory, Humanitarian Intervention, and the Need for a Democratic Federation. Journal of Religious Ethics 39 (3):493-555.score: 580.0
    The primary purpose of government is to secure public goods that cannot be achieved by free markets. The Coordination Principle tells us to consolidate sovereign power in a single institution to overcome collective action problems that otherwise prevent secure provision of the relevant public goods. There are several public goods that require such coordination at the global level, chief among them being basic human rights. The claim that human rights require global coordination is supported in three main steps. First, I (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Nick Fotion (2006). Two Theories of Just War. Philosophia 34 (1):53-64.score: 555.0
    As it is traditionally conceived, Just War Theory is not well suited for dealing with nation vs non-nation wars. It thus makes sense to create a second Just War Theory to deal with these wars. This article explores the differences and similarities between the two theories.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. N. Sussmann (2013). Can Just War Theory Delegitimate Terrorism? European Journal of Political Theory 12 (4):425-446.score: 549.0
    The rapidly expanding literature on terrorism can be seen to respond to the growing incidence of violent political conflict. Most of the relevant discussion is conducted within the framework of just war theory – a theory in which armed conflicts are considered legitimate only when they are explicitly announced and justified; when they take place between states and their armies; and when they are strictly exclusive of non-combatants. This article argues that framing the discussion in these terms (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. G. Long (2012). Disputes in Just War Theory and Meta-Theory. European Journal of Political Theory 11 (2):209-225.score: 549.0
    Recently, alternatives to both the structure and content of ‘orthodox’ just war theory have been proposed by Jeff McMahan and David Rodin. In this paper, I draw on this debate to show that key ideas in just war theory can be disputed in both of these respects. More broadly, it is unclear how we should assess the debate between differing conceptions of individual principles (such as just cause and proportionality) and the competing wider theories in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. James Pattison (2008). Just War Theory and the Privatization of Military Force. Ethics and International Affairs 22 (2):143–162.score: 540.0
    The use of private military companies (PMCs) has become increasingly prevalent, with such firms as Blackwater, MPRI, and DynCorp taking over a growing number of roles traditionally performed by the regular military. This article uses the framework of just war theory (JWT) to consider the central normative issues raised by this privatization of military force. In particular, I first examine the claim that private contractors are inappropriate actors to wage war because they contravene the JWT principle of right (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. C. A. J. Coady (1980). The Leaders and the Led: Problems of Just War Theory. Inquiry 23 (3):275 – 291.score: 540.0
    Any attempt to justify war in the fashion of just war theories risks underestimating its morally problematic nature. This becomes clear if we ask how the individual soldier or citizen is supposed to use just war theory in his own thinking. Michael Walzer's recent book, Just and Unjust Wars, illustrates the problem nicely. Walzer's view is that whether a state is justified in going to war is not a matter for the citizen to judge, and with (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Joseph Betz (2005). Proportionality, Just War Theory, and America's 2003–2004 War Against Iraq. Social Philosophy Today 21:137-156.score: 540.0
    Just war theory requires that a nation at war respect proportionality both before it goes to war, jus ad bellum, and in the way it fights a war, jus in bello. To respect proportionality is to know or estimate on good evidence that the whole war and the tactics used in the war will not generate more evil and harm and costs than they will generate good and help and benefits. This paper argues that the 2003–2004 U.S. war (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Emily Crookston (2005). Strict Just War Theory and Conditional Pacifism. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 79:73-84.score: 540.0
    With regard to the morality of war, political philosophers have defended one of two basic positions, just war theory or absolute pacifism, but between thesetwo opposing views are various moderate positions. Throughout its long history, the Catholic Church has taken various stances, some strong and others more moderate, on the question of war. Unfortunately, the most recent formulation of the Church’s position is a moderate position without clear guidelines. In this paper I argue that if one wishes to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Davis Brown (2011). Proportionality in Modern Just War Theory: A Tort-Based Approach. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):213-229.score: 540.0
    Abstract This article lays a theoretical foundation the perspective of international law for applying the principle of proportionality of cause in modern just war theory. It proposes an analytical framework for measuring proportionality based on general tort law, filtered through the international law of state responsibility. It proposes assessing the use of force as a proportionate (or disproportionate) remediation for an injury (present or future) caused by another state that is in breach of its legal obligations. The article (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Lucinda J. Peach (1994). An Alternative to Pacifism? Feminism and Just-War Theory. Hypatia 9 (2):152 - 172.score: 540.0
    Only rarely have feminist theorists addressed the adequacy of just-war theory, a set of principles developed over hundreds of years to assess the justice of going to war and the morality of conduct in war. Recently, a few feminist scholars have found just-war theory inadequate, yet their own counterproposals are also deficient. I assess feminist contributions to just-war theorizing and suggest ways of strengthening, rather than abandoning, this moral approach to war.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Danielle Poe (2008). Replacing Just War Theory with an Ethics of Sexual Difference. Hypatia 23 (2):pp. 33-47.score: 540.0
    This essay argues that the flaws of just war theory should lead us to develop a new approach to living with others. Danielle Poe begins her argument with a description of just war theory and its failures. In the next section, Poe discusses the philosophy of Bat-Ami Bar On and Luce Irigaray in order to construct ethical commitments between people. These ethical commitments come from concrete acts of empathy, such as relationships of compassion, kindness, and hospitality. (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Simeon O. Ilesanmi (2000). Just War Theory in Comparative Perspective: A Review Essay. [REVIEW] Journal of Religious Ethics 28 (1):137 - 155.score: 540.0
    The late twentieth century has provided both reasons and occasions for reassessing just war theory as an organizing framework for the moral analysis of war. Books by G. Scott Davis, James T. Johnson, and John Kelsay, together with essays by Jeffrey Stout, Charles Butterworth, David Little, Bruce Lawrence, Courtney Campbell, and Tamara Sonn, signal a remarkable shift in war studies as they enlarge the cultural lens through which the interests and forces at play in political violence are identified (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Sally Scholz (2006). Just War Theory, Crimes of War, and War Rape. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (1):143-157.score: 540.0
    Recent decades have witnessed rape and sexual violence used on such a massive scale and often in a widespread and systematic program that the international community has had to recognize that rape and sexual violence are not just war crimes but might be crimes against humanity or even genocide. I suggest that just war theory, while limited in its applicability to mass rape, might nevertheless offer some framework for making the determination of when sexual violence and rape (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Conway Waddington (2012). Reconciling Just War Theory and Water-Related Conflict. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):197-212.score: 540.0
    This paper suggests that certain characteristics of resourcerelated conflict reveal areas of contemporary Just War Theory that are insufficiently rigorous or robust in their current form. Water security in particular, reveals ambiguity in the Just War framework’s treatment of the jus ad bellum criteria of ‘just cause,’ which in turn challenges the credibility of the entire system. The insufficiency that is exposed has consequences for the effectiveness and cogency of the bodies of international law and global (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Rodney G. Peffer (2008). The U.S. War in Iraq, Just War Theory and Neoconservatism. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 40:115-151.score: 540.0
    Given certain well-known empirical facts–including the Bush II administration’s motivations and its actions initiating the war – the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and its continuing war of occupation) is not just (i.e., is not morally justified), on any standard interpretation of Just War Theory criteria for jus ad bellum. Since there was no imminent threat of attack by Iraq against the U.S., the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a Preventative or Merely Precautionary War (which is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Shawn Kaplan (2013). Just War Theory. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 19 (2):4-14.score: 540.0
    The usefulness of Just War Theory (JWT) has been called into question in recent years for two key reasons. First, military conflicts today less frequently fit the model traditionally assumed by JWT of interstate wars between regular armies. Second, there is a perception that JWT has lost its critical edge after its categories and principles have been co-opted by bellicose political leaders. This paper critically examines two responses to these concerns which shift the locus of responsibility for wars (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Jacoby Adeshei Carter (2009). Just/New War Theory. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 16 (2):1-11.score: 525.0
    This paper considers the increasingly common suggestion that a new form of warfare has emerged. It clarifies the notion of new wars and responds to an argument for the claim that in order to achieve military parity non-state actors must violate just war principles. I reject the claim that violation of just war principles is necessary and argue that we can make reasonable normative judgments about new wars in terms of just war theory. From there, I (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Jeff McMahan, I The Traditional Theory of the Just War.score: 522.0
    The traditional theory of the just war comprises two sets of principles, one governing the resort to war (jus ad bellum) and the other governing the (...)conduct of war (jus in bello). One of the central pillars of the traditional theory is that the two set of principles are, in Michael Walzers words, “logically independent. It is perfectly possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict.. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Jeff McMahan, Hobbesian Defenses of Orthodox Just War Theory.score: 492.0
    Most of us accept that all persons have a right not to be killed, unless they forfeit or, perhaps, waive it. According to the currently dominant understanding of the just war, civilians retain the protection of this right in conditions of war but combatants do not. On one view, combatants forfeit the right by posing a threat to others; on another view, they waive it when they accept combatant status, which requires that they identify themselves visually and in other (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Daniel A. Dombrowski (2010). Just War Theory, Afghanistan, and Walzer. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (1):1-7.score: 492.0
    In this short article I call into question the view that the current United States war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. In this effort I am primarily engaged with the thought of the famous just war theorist Michael Walzer as it has developed from 1977 until 2009.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Edmund F. Byrne (2009). Just War Theory and Peace Studies. Teaching Philosophy 32 (3):297-304.score: 492.0
    Scholarly critiques of the just war tradition have grown in number and sophistication in recent years to the point that available publications now provide the basis for a more philosophically challenging Peace Studies course. Focusing on just a few works published in the past several years, this review explores how professional philosophers are reclaiming the terrain long dominated by the approach of political scientist Michael Walzer. On center stage are British philosopher David Rodin’s critique of the self-defensejustification for (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Davis Brown (2011). Judging the Judges: Evaluating Challenges to Proper Authority in Just War Theory. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):133-147.score: 492.0
    Abstract The article criticizes the trend of reformulating the traditional just-war criterion of Proper Authority, which was designed to de-legitimize force by non-state actors, into a requirement that decisions to resort to force be multilateral. The article illustrates several shortcomings of the judgment processes of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, the World Court, and states? populations, and argues among other things that reformulating Proper Authority would render other criteria meaningless, especially Just Cause. Finally, the article rebuts (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. R. J. Connelly (2000). Just-War Theory and the Role of the Police Sniper. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (2):175-189.score: 492.0
    As critical incidents and terrorist threats are on the increase, the military/SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) aspects of U.S. civilian policing are being expanded. The person called upon as a last resort to kill the criminal agent has a unique position on the SWAT team. The police sniper is asked to kill with premeditation and usually not in a situation of self-defense. Very little appears in the ethics literature analyzing the morality of the sniper role. This paper will tentatively outline (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Gregory M. Reichberg (2013). The Moral Equality of Combatants – a Doctrine in Classical Just War Theory? A Response to Graham Parsons. Journal of Military Ethics 12 (2):181 - 194.score: 492.0
    Contrary to what has been alleged, the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) is not a doctrine that was expressly developed by the traditional theorists of just war. Working from the axiom that just cause is unilateral, they did not embrace a conception of public war that included MEC. Indeed, MEC was introduced in the early fifteenth century as a challenge to the then reigning just war paradigm. It does not follow, however, that the distinction between private and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Laura Purdy (2006). Vitoria's Just War Theory: Still Relevant Today. In R. Joseph Hoffmann (ed.), The Just War and Jihad. Prometheus Press.score: 492.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Cheyney Ryan (2013). Pacifism, Just War, and Self-Defense. Philosophia 41 (4):1-29.score: 480.0
    This essay distinguishes two main forms of pacifism, personal pacifism and political pacifism. It then contrasts the views on self-defense of political pacifism and just war theory, paying special attention to notions of the state and sovereignty.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Peter L. P. Simpson (2011). Transcending Justice: Pope John Paul II and Just War. Journal of Religious Ethics 39 (2):286-298.score: 480.0
    Pope John Paul II's opposition to the Iraq War was not that it failed to meet the conditions of Just War Theory. Indeed, we cannot tell from what he publicly said whether he thought it met those conditions or not, for he would have opposed it in any case. His thinking was rather that even just and necessary wars always come, as it were, too late, and are never able to solve the problems that made wars (...) and necessary. He was not trying therefore to enter into the details of Just War Theory. He wanted to subsume the principles of war into the principles of peace and to do so, not by denying justice, but by transcending it with charity. This article shows how this thinking is to be understood and the many means the Pope devised for putting this thinking into practice. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Aleksandar Jokic (2012). What's A Just War Theorist? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 4 (2):91-114.score: 480.0
    The article provides an account of the unlikely revival of the medieval Just War Theory, due in large part to the efforts of Michael Walzer. Its purpose is to address the question: What is a just war theorist? By exploring contrasts between scholarly activity and forms of international activism, the paper argues that just war theorists appear to be just war criminals, both on the count of aiding and abetting aggression and on the count of (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Andrew Sola (2009). The Enlightened Grunt? Invincible Ignorance in the Just War Tradition. Journal of Military Ethics 8 (1):48-65.score: 480.0
    This essay addresses one of the central questions in the ongoing debate about just war theory: are soldiers morally responsible for serving in unjust wars? Francisco de Vitoria addressed this question in the sixteenth century using the concepts of invincible and vincible ignorance. He excused soldiers serving in unjust wars, if they did not know the war was unjust and if they did not have the means to overcome their ignorance; if they had the means, they were morally (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Helmut David Baer & Joseph E. Capizzi (2005). Just War Theories Reconsidered: Problems with Prima Facie Duties and the Need for a Political Ethic. Journal of Religious Ethics 33 (1):119-137.score: 464.0
    This essay challenges a "meta-theory" in just war analysis that purports to bridge the divide between just war and pacifism. According to the meta-theory, just war and pacifism share a common presumption against killing that can be overridden only under conditions stipulated by the just war criteria. Proponents of this meta-theory purport that their interpretation leads to ecumenical consensus between "just warriors" and pacifists, and makes the just war theory more (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. J. Pattison (2012). The Legitimacy of the Military, Private Military and Security Companies, and Just War Theory. European Journal of Political Theory 11 (2):131-154.score: 459.0
    The legitimacy of the military is frequently overlooked in standard accounts of jus ad bellum. Accordingly, this paper considers how the military should be organized. It proposes a normative conception of legitimacy – the ‘Moderate Instrumentalist Approach’ – that outlines the qualities that a military should possess. It then assesses the three leading ways of organizing the military according to this approach: the use of private military and security companies (PMSCs), a conscripted force and the all-volunteer force (AVF). The paper (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Eric Reitan (1994). The Irreconcilability of Pacifism and Just War Theory. Social Theory and Practice 20 (2):117-134.score: 459.0
  50. Lorraine Besser-Jones (2005). Just War Theory, Legitimate Authority, and the "War" on Terror. In Timothy Shanahan (ed.), Philosophy 9/11: Thinking About the War on Terrorism. Open Court.score: 459.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000