Just War And Human Rights

Discusses how just war theory needs to be revised to better secure and respect human rights. Warfare in the twenty-first century presents significant challenges to the modern state. Serious questions have arisen about the use of drones, target selection, civilian exposure to harm, intervening for humanitarian reasons, and war as a means of forcing regime change. In Just War and Human Rights Todd Burkhardt argues that updating the laws of war and reforming just war theory is needed. A twenty-year veteran of the US Army, Burkhardt claims that war is impermissible unless it is engaged, fought, and concluded with right intention. A state must not only have a just cause and limit its war-making activity in order to vindicate the just cause, but it must also seek to vindicate its just cause in a way that yields a just and lasting peace. A just and lasting peace is motivated by the just war tenet of right intention and predicated on the realization of human rights. Therefore, human rights should not only dictate how a state treats its own people but also how a state treats the people of other countries, insulating them and protecting innocent civilians from the harms of war. Todd Burkhardt is Professor of Military Science at Indiana University at Bloomington.

Under the nonideal conditions of our world, war is sometimes morally permissible, perhaps even required. Just war theory aims to make sense of this. It does so, on my view, by allowing war only if pursued with 'right intention.' In order permissibly to go to war, a state must not only have a just cause and limit its war-making activity to that necessary to vindicate the just cause, both required in order to engage in war with 'right intention,' but it must also seek to vindicate its just cause in a manner likely to yield a 'just and lasting peace.' To fight without or unconstrained by this latter aim is to fight without the required 'right intention.' A lasting peace is not possible unless certain standards of basic justice are secure. These include those given by human rights, by principles of political self-determination and international toleration, and by the recognition of international responsibilities to protect. I argue further that these norms governing 'right intention' should be realized as international legal norms. My aim is to make the case for some needed reforms to just war theory in order to give more adequate content to the idea that war is impermissible unless it is engaged and fought and concluded with 'right intention.' Aligning the just war tradition with human rights is essential because human rights constitute the core of international justice. Securing and respecting human rights; protecting noncombatants from the residual effects of war during the postwar period; tolerating illiberal but decent regimes; allowing for reasonable political self-determination; establishing when military intervention in accordance with the Responsibility to Protect is required; and updating, facilitating, and adjudicating a revised Fourth Geneva Convention that better protects civilians, can all be argued for as necessary if force is to be governed by a 'right intention' oriented toward peace with justice.

Argues the just war tradition, rather than being a restraint on war, has expanded its scope, and criticises this trend.

Contributors seek to promote reasoned debate about emerging security threats and potential military responses.

This book offers a systematic critique of recent interventionist just war theories, which have made the recourse to force easier to justify. The work argues that these theories, including neo-traditionalist prerogatives to national leaders and a cosmopolitan human rights paradigm, offer criteria for war that are insufficient in principle and dangerous in practice. Drawing on a plurality of moral considerations, the book recommends a modified legalist national defense paradigm, which includes an atrocity threshold for humanitarian intervention and a legitimate authorization requirement. The plausibility of this restrictive framework is applied to case studies, including the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ongoing targeted killing, and possible interventions in Syria and elsewhere. Various arguments which seek to loosen the criteria for war are also systematically analyzed and criticized. This book will be of much interest to students of just war theory, military history, ethics, political philosophy, and international relations.

This book asks whether states have the right to intervene in foreign civil conflicts for humanitarian reasons. The UN Charter prohibits state aggression, but many argue that such a right exists as an exception to this rule. Offering a thorough analysis of this issue, the book puts NATO's action in Kosovo in its proper legal perspective.

This new Handbook offers a comprehensive overview of contemporary extensions and alternatives to the just war tradition in the field of the ethics of war. The modern history of just war has typically assumed the primacy of four particular elements: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, the state actor, and the solider. This book will put these four elements under close scrutiny, and will explore how they fare given the following challenges: • What role do the traditional elements of jus ad bellum and jus in bello—and the constituent principles that follow from this distinction—play in modern warfare? Do they adequately account for a normative theory of war? • What is the role of the state in warfare? Is it or should it be the primary actor in just war theory? • Can a just war be understood simply as a response to territorial aggression between state actors, or should other actions be accommodated under legitimate recourse to armed conflict? • Is the idea of combatant qua state-employed soldier a valid ethical characterization of actors in modern warfare? • What role does the technological backdrop of modern warfare play in understanding and realizing just war theories? Over the course of three key sections, the contributors examine these challenges to the just war tradition in a way that invigorates existing discussions and generates new debate on topical and prospective issues in just war theory. This book will be of great interest to students of just war theory, war and ethics, peace and conflict studies, philosophy and security studies.

Just war theory exists to stop armies and countries from using armed force without good cause. But how can we judge whether a war is just? In this original book, John W. Lango takes some distinctive approaches to the ethics of armed conflict. DT A revisionist approach that involves generalising traditional just war principles, so that they are applicable by all sorts of responsible agents to all forms of armed conflict DT A cosmopolitan approach that features the Security Council DT A preventive approach that emphasises alternatives to armed force, including negotiation, nonviolent action and peacekeeping missions DT A human rights approach that encompasses not only armed humanitarian intervention but also armed invasion, armed revolution and all other forms of armed conflict Lango shows how these can be applied to all forms of armed conflict, however large or small: from interstate wars to UN peacekeeping missions, and from civil wars counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations.