Jovan Babic
University of Belgrade
The paper examines the justification of warfare. The main thesis is that war is very difficult to justify, and justification by invoking “justice” is not the way to succeed it. Justification and justness (“justice”) are very different venues: while the first attempts to explain the nature of war and offer possible schemes of resolution (through adequate definitions), the second aims to endorse a specific type of warfare as correct and hence allowed – which is the crucial part of “just war theory.” However, “just war theory,” somewhat Manichean in its nature, has very deep flaws. Its final result is criminalization of war, which reduces warfare to police action, and finally implies a very strange proviso that one side has a right to win. All that endangers the distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello, and destroys the collective character of warfare (reducing it to an incomprehensible individual level, as if a group of people entered a battle in hopes of finding another group of people willing to respond). Justification of war is actually quite different – it starts from the definition of war as a kind of conflict which cannot be solved peacefully, but for which there is mutual understanding that it cannot remain unresolved. The aim of war is not justice, but peace, i.e. either a new articulation of peace, or a restoration of the status quo ante. Additionally, unlike police actions, the result of war cannot be known or assumed in advance, giving war its main feature: the lack of control over the future. Control over the future, predictability (obtained through laws), is a feature of peace. This might imply that war is a consequence of failed peace, or inability to maintain peace. The explanation of this inability (which could simply be incompetence, or because peace, as a specific articulation of distribution of social power, is not tenable anymore) forms the justification of war. Justice is always an important part of it, but justification cannot be reduced to it. The logic contained here refers to ius ad bellum, while ius in bello is relative to various parameters of sensitivity prevalent in a particular time (and expressed in customary and legal rules of warfare), with the purpose to make warfare more humane and less expensive.
Keywords war  peace  justification of war   ius ad bellum   ius in bello  justification vs. justness
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

The Ethics of Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2004 - Ethics 114 (4):693-733.
Non-Culpable Ignorance and Just War Theory.Jovan Babic - 2007 - Filozofija I Društvo 18 (3):59-68.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Review. [REVIEW]Olivier Zegna Rata - 1994 - Bibliothèque d'Humanisme Et Renaissance 56 (1):210-214.
Positioning Subjects (Stephen Appel).E. Rata - 2001 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 33 (3/4):431-435.
The S? Rasvata Y? Tsattra in Mah? Bh? Rata 17 and 18.Christopher R. Austin - forthcoming - International Journal of Hindu Studies.
Socijalna Umetnost U Srbiji Izmeð Dva Rata.C. Vjekoslav Cetkovi - 1991 - Akademija Umetnosti U Novom Sadu.


Added to PP index

Total views
258 ( #39,216 of 2,463,138 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
58 ( #14,405 of 2,463,138 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes