Just War Thinkers : From Cicero to the 21st Century (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Just-War Tradition in Contemporary Civic Debate
2009
COURSE OVERVIEW The backdrop for this course is supplied by contemporary events—by the problem of international terrorism and the current attempt to address this problem through war. However, this is not a course on terrorism or on the “war against terror” per se; it is a course on the power of great texts to help us think deeply, ethically and concretely about war, and thus to debate the justice of any particular war in philosophically fruitful ways. As such, this is a course in the connection between citizenship, philosophy and tradition—in the ways that rich traditions of politicalphilosophical reflection can be brought to bear effectively on issues of contemporary life. The course begins with a session on “formulating questions.” In this introductory session we face the challenge of admitting our ignorance and trying to articulate the questions we would most like to answer. We turn then to a seven-week long, in-depth study of the just-war tradition, focusing on the authors and t...
2020
The topic of war and its nature firmly remains among top disputable topics within the international relations domain. One of the enduring questions yet to be answered is whether wars are a principally bad thing. While armed conflict, in the broadest sense, is generally associated with massive destructions and civilian casualty, there still appears to be much discussion on whether, under certain circumstances, wars can be justified. That is where various approaches emerge: while traditional just war theorists assert that just to resort to war is permissible exclusively in self-defence to counteract actual military threats, some scholars still disagree by claiming that there can never be fairly justifiable reasoning to initiate the war. Conversely, other opponents of just war tradition with a rather nationalist stance claim that in the conditions of modern times, in which political self-interests of separate nations play a central role, just war is outdated and unfeasible. Nevertheless, despite all the criticism, just war has made and continues to have a profound influence on global politics and transnational security. In fact, the so-called 'father of international law'-Hugo Grotius who largely contributed to the development of world order, has shared basic principles of this doctrine. However, the vision of Grotius did not fully comply with the traditional theory of just war, which can be traced in such aspects as which purposes it may pursue, how it should be fought and who may wage it. By analysing these and some other points, this paper seeks identify the key divergence in judgements of Hugo Grotius and other thinkers of just war tradition, which in turn may help to delve deeper into the enduring question of war and its justifiability. Before proceeding to discuss whether a war may be justified and under which conditions, for a better understanding of the concept, it is first worth touching upon the definition of war. In the broad sense, war means rivalry of two or more contending political sides, characterized by substantial time frames and enormity of the conflict. Though, in the usage of political disciplines, scientists tend to identify war more specifically: mainly, as a state of declared and waged armed confrontation in compliance with publicly accepted formats. From that angle, wars are regarded as institutions acknowledged "in custom or in law" [1]. From this, it can already be traced that the contemporary society's vision of war initially presumes that a war may occur at any point and as such the practical laws for its conduct are required. Yet, to generate such regulations effectively, as well as to set "predictive models of war", the nature of war occurrence needs to be examined [2]. In that regard, the study of just war offers tangible benefits, covering not only potential
Quo Vadis? On the role of just peace within just war
International Theory, 2022
This article contributes to the debate about the future of just war thinking, which has been challenged by the emerging school of just peace. Just peace thinkers hope that by foregrounding nonviolent means just war reasoning will become obsolete. Recently, the German Catholic Bishops have argued that the traditional understanding of just war contributed to their predecessors' silence on the Second World War. Grounded in just peace thinking, their argument implies that had the new framework been in place at the time, it would have been easier for their predecessors to oppose Hitler's war. In this article, I defend traditional just war thinking as encountered in the thought of Thomas Aquinas. For Aquinas, just war thinking was part of an encompassing ethics of war and peace. In fact, peace was the primary goal. Grounded in Aquinas's understanding of virtue, I argue that there is a place for just peace scholarship within the just war framework. The tools of nonviolence should be seen as an important complement to the justifiable use of armed force.
The Ethics of War. Part I: Historical Trends1
Philosophy Compass, 2012
Abstract This article surveys the major historical developments in Western philosophical reflection on war. Section 2 outlines early development in Greek and Roman thought, up to and including Augustine. Section 3 details the systematization of Just War theory in Aquinas and his successors, especially Vitoria, Suárez, and Grotius. Section 4 examines the emergence of Perpetual Peace theory after Hobbes, focusing in particular on Rousseau and Kant. Finally, Section 5 outlines the central points of contention following the reemergence ...
Just war and the question of authority
Zeitschrift für Ethik und Moralphilosophie, 2018
This article assesses the recently renewed interest in the just war criterion of sovereign authority from a Thomistic perspective. It contrasts the classical conceptualisation of authority as found in the work of St Thomas Aquinas with the argument made by today's revisionist just war thinkers. The article points out that the two approaches start from fundamentally different units of moral analysis. While the Thomistic just war emphasises the common good of the political community revisionists advocate the perspective of moral individualism. As a result, for Thomism, only those entrusted with the responsibility for the common good of the political community are entitled to wage war while, in contrast, revisionists argue that any individual has the right to wage war. The latter side's position, the article criticises, is problematic from a moral point of view as it runs counter to the just war tradition's concern about restraint in the employment of force.
Just War' or Just War? The Future(s) of a Tradition
Politics, 2000
The greatest virtue of the just war lies in its ability to pass judgement on war (the announced aims) and its conduct (the adopted strategy). But how coherent is this synthesis of ideas that assumes a unity between force, political expediency and morality? Can individual wars be morally assessed, and how useful is the just war in this respect? This article assesses the modern relevance of the tradition before suggesting directions for further research in the light of the recent Kosovo Crisis.