Abstract

The Just War tradition spans 1,600 years, but the distinct just war theories that emerge during that period reflect the changing historical and political reality of their own times. A distinctive feature of contemporary just war theorists is their emphasis on jus in bello, how wars are fought, rather than on jus ad bellum concerns, when wars may be fought. Critics contend that the Just War tradition is no longer applicable in a world threatened with nuclear holocaust. The purpose of this study is to show that the Just War tradition remains applicable in the nuclear age; three contemporary just war theorists have been selected to show that this is the case: Michael Walzer, political theorist; Paul Ramsey, theologian, and William V. O'Brien, professor of international law. Each is also influenced by his Jewish, Protestant and Roman Catholic tradition respectively. ;The focus is on the principles of proportionality and discrimination, showing how the three theorists define, validate and apply these principles to the conduct of war as compared to the concepts of the classic just war theorists and to those expressed in the 1983 U.S. Catholic Bishops' Statement. This Statement reflects the influence of the three secular theorists and also of contemporary moral theory. Just war principles are applied to the uses of nuclear weapons in war-fighting and deterrence and to actual public policy. The four positions compare as follows: on use of nuclear weapons in war-fighting, all four theories find countervalue use morally unjustified, although O'Brien makes some qualifications where nuclear war is in progress. Ramsey, O'Brien and the Bishops permit retaliatory counterforce use. Regarding deterrence, Ramsey, O'Brien and the Bishops oppose CV targeting, although Ramsey and the Bishops acknowledge the CV threat inherent in all nuclear weapons; O'Brien allows CV targeting to deter further attacks during a nuclear war in progress. Ramsey, O'Brien and the Bishops allow for a moral CF deterrent. Walzer opposes all use and deterrence as immoral but says "supreme emergency" may demand the immoral be done. All four positions converge in their hierarchy of values ranking the individual person first and "civilization," second. Thus just war principles provide policy-makers with a moral basis to move beyond "national egoism" by directing them to be concerned about the needs of the person and about the interdependence among states--principles whose validity has often been assumed but whose application has never been so necessary