War Ethics And Justice

This edited volume addresses the key issues of ethics, war and international relations in the post-9/11 world. There is a lively debate in contemporary international relations concerning the relationship between statist obligations to one’s own political community and cosmopolitan duties to distant others. This volume contributes to this debate by investigating aspects of the ethics of national military and security and intelligence policies in the post-9/11 environment. The discursive transformation of national militaries into ‘forces for good’ became normalized as the Cold War subsided. While the number of humanitarian military interventions and operations rose considerably in the immediate post-Cold War period, the advent of the ‘war on terror’ raised questions about exactly what we mean by ethical behaviour in terms of military and security policies. This volume interrogates this key question via a focus that is both distinctive and illuminating – on national military ethics; femininities, masculinities and difference; and intelligence ethics. The key objectives are to demonstrate the important linkages between areas of international relations that are all too often treated in isolation from one another, and to investigate the growing tension between cosmopolitan and communitarian conceptions of intelligence and security and the use of armed force. This book will be of much interest to students of security studies, ethics, gender studies, intelligence studies, and international relations in general. Mark Phythian is Professor of Politics in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Leicester. He is the author or editor/co-editor of ten books. Annika Bergman-Rosamond is Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen.

The just war ethic emerges from an affirmative response to the basic question of whether people may sometimes permissibly intend to kill other people. In Politics, Justice, and War, Joseph E. Capizzi clarifies the meaning and coherence of the "just war" approach, to the use of force in the context of Christian ethics. By reconnecting the just war ethic to an Augustinian political approach, Capizzi illustrates that the just war ethic requires emphasis on the "right intention," or goal, of peace as ordered justice. With peace set as the goal of war, the various criteria of the just war ethic gain their intelligibility and help provide practical guidance to all levels of society regarding when to go to war and how to strive to contain it. So conceived, the ethic places stringent limits on noncombatant or "innocent" killing in war, helps make sense of contemporary technological and strategic challenges, and opens up space for a critical and constructive dialogue with international law.

This book examines the international political order in the post-Cold War era, arguing that this order has become progressively more punitive. This is seen as resulting from both a human-rights regime that emphasizes legal norms and the aggressive policies of the United States and its allies in the ‘War on Terror’. While punishment can play a key role in creating justice in a political system, serious flaws in the current global order militate against punishment-enforcing global norms. The book argues for the necessary presence of three key concepts - justice, authority and agency - if punishment is to function effectively, and explores four practices in the current international system: intervention, sanctions, counter- terrorism policy, and war crimes tribunals. It concludes by suggesting ways to revise the current global political structure in order to enable punitive practices to play a more central role in creating a just world order. This book will be of much interest to students of International Law, Political Science and International Relations.

The Justice of War: Its Foundations in Ethics and Natural Law puts normative ethical theory at the forefront in its discussion of the justice of war. Situating the modern theory of just war in its historical context, Richard A. S. Hall gives full attention to natural law, a mainstay of just war theory. Hall considers the American philosopher Josiah Royce’s implicit theory of just war with its suggestion of a fourth component of just war theory (in addition to jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum), namely, jus ad pacem—justice/law for or about peace—concerning the prevention of war and the maintenance of peace. This book addresses, and answers affirmatively, the following questions raised by just war theory: Can just war theory be rationally defended against its realpolitik critics? Can there by such a thing as a just or moral war? The book aims at showing the doubters and critics that just war theory is a viable alternative to both the political realism of realpolitik and pacifism. In brief, war can be morally justified, though under very restrictive conditions.

Justice and the Just War Tradition articulates a distinctive understanding of the reasons that can justify war, of the reasons that cannot justify war, and of the role that those reasons should play in the motivational and attitudinal lives of the citizens, soldiers, and statesmen who participate in war. Eberle does so by relying on a robust conception of human worth, rights, and justice. He locates this theoretical account squarely in the Just War Tradition. But his account is not merely theoretical: Justice and the Just War Tradition has a variety of practical aims, one of the most important of which is to serve as an aid to moral formation. The hope is that citizens, soldiers, and statesmen whose emotions and aspirations have been shaped by the Just War Tradition will be able to negotiate violent communal conflict in ways that respect the demands of justice. So Justice and the Just War Tradition articulates a theoretically satisfying and practically engaging account of the reasons that count in favor of war. Moreover, Eberle develops that account by engaging contemporary theorists, both philosophical and theological, by according due deference to venerable contributors to the Just War Tradition, and by integrating insights from military memoire, the history of war, and the author's experience of teaching ethics at the United States Naval Academy.

Drawing on examples from the history of warfare from the crusades to the present day, "The ethics of war" explores the limits and possibilities of the moral regulation of war. While resisting the commonly held view that 'war is hell', A.J. Coates focuses on the tensions which exist between war and morality. The argument is conducted from a just war standpoint, though the moral ambiguity and mixed record of that tradition is acknowledge and the dangers which an exaggerated view of the justice or moral worth of war poses are underlined. In the first part, the broad image of the just war is compared with the competing images of realism, militarism and pacifism. In the second part, the moral issues associated both with the decision to go to war and with the manner in which war is conducted are explored. Was the allied decision to go to war in the Gulf premature? were economic sanctions a more effective and morally preferable option? was Britain justified in going to war over the Falklands? did the allied bombing of Germany in the Second World War constitute a war crime? should the IRA's claim to belligerent status be recognised? these questions and more are raised in this important book.

This monograph directly addresses the problem posed when considering the question 'Who says what right is?' or 'Justice according to whom?' The relative nature of the term 'justice' creates a problem for military ethics, particularly when soldiers try to determine what actions are morally acceptable while engaged in irregular war. This problem prompted a distinct way of thinking about 'justice' to form over the course of history, called the Just War Tradition. However, instead of encouraging ethical reflection, Just War Tradition has today caused military ethics to drift toward legalism. What can stop this slide into strict formalism, where law eclipses ethics? The research conducted for this monograph has led the author to believe that the answer lies in a philosophical current called personalism, which has synthesized the Aristotelian and Kantian positions. Simply stated, personalism promotes empathetic reflection prior to acting. Personalism does this by emphasizing the equal dignity of human beings, an idea that is particularly salient to irregular war. During irregular war, military actions are intended to win over the civilian population. The value, therefore, of adopting a personalist ethic is not only moral, but also pragmatic, guiding irregular warfare closer to success.