Two Rival Versions of Just War Theory and the Presumption Against Harm in Policing

The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics 18:221-239 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a debate, centrally between James Turner Johnson and James F. Childress, on how to understand the just war tradition. The international arena has historically served as the context for demonstrating the normative and political utility of the just war tradition. Contemporary experience shows, however, that violence is not only a distant issue, but it is also a local, domestic problem. Investigation into contemporary police practice, a lacuna in Christian ethics, with regard to the justifiable use of force can help clarify which understanding of the just war tradition is preferable.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,867

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What Is at Stake in the Debate over Presumptions in the Just War Tradition.Matthew A. Shadle - 2012 - Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 32 (2):133-152.
James Turner Johnson's Just War Idea: Commanding the Headwaters of Tradition.Cian O'Driscoll - 2008 - Journal of International Political Theory 4 (2):189-211.
Serve and Protect: Selected Essays on Just Policing.Tobias L. Winright - 2020 - Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books. Edited by Todd Whitmore.
Medicine as Just War? The Legacy of James Childress in Christian Ethics.Brett McCarty - 2018 - Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 38 (2):57-74.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-09-16

Downloads
3 (#1,731,220)

6 months
1 (#1,721,226)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references