Peace plays a central role in the ethics of war and peace, but this proves to be an enormous challenge. In a recent article, Elisabeth Forster and Isaac Taylor grapple with this important topic. They argue that certain concepts in just war theory—aggression, legitimacy, and peace—are essentially contested and susceptible to manipulation. Because the rules are interpreted and applied by the very states that wage war, it is as if the fox is asked to guard the chicken coop—a recipe for (...) disaster. To avoid manipulation of the theory and make the goal of peace attainable, they defend “minimalism” in the ethics of war and peace. This paper responds to and builds on their article. After nuancing the analysis, I will argue that their minimalism does not solve the problem since the proposed alternative concept is equally prone to misuse, and that their minimalism is mistargeted. What I propose is to specify and ground the rules of war without raising the standard too high, to disentangle jus ad bellum and jus post bellum and see peace as guiding principle for jus post bellum, and to interpret that in a minimalist way. (shrink)

The war in just war theory Just war theory has an ancient pedigree. While the substantive norms and application of those norms have always been debated, the debate today is entirely polarized. So polarized, that there seems to be a ‘war’ raging in just war theory. On one side are representatives of Walzer’s conventional position and on the other side so-called revisionists as McMahan, Fabre, Rodin, and Frowe. This paper offers a critical analysis of that dichotomy. While most of the (...) debate is focused on the substantive level (the norms itself), I focus here on the conceptual level (terminology and character of the positions) and meta-level (the underlying theoretical premises). My aim is threefold: to assist readers in understanding contemporary contributions to just war theory; to facilitate a truce between both camps by highlighting respective strengths and weaknesses and by exposing a certain division of labor; and to suggest improvements for both positions. (shrink)

Jus post bellum is the ‘new’ part of just war theory that deals with questions of post war justice. While many argue for this extension of just war theory, there is no agreement on the content and scope of post war norms. The debate on jus post bellum is often presented as one between so-called ‘minimalists’ and ‘maximalists’. This article analyses these main positions and the supposed differences between them, and argues that this distinction is no longer relevant. There is (...) no clear opposition between the two positions, but there are gradual variations in terms of content and scope of jus post bellum. In order to pinpoint these variations, a broader perspective is taken. The article thus aims to demonstrate that the content and scope of post war norms depends on two factors: the particular situation to which just war theory applies, and the general view on just war theory and international relations that is adopted. These factors explain the general shift towards a maximalist understanding of jus post bellum. (shrink)

Can the global poor wage a just redistributive war against the global rich? The moral norms governing the use of force are usually considered to be very strict. Nonetheless, some philosophers have recently argued that violating duties of global justicecanbe a just cause for war. This paper discusses redistributive wars. It shows that the strength of these arguments is contingent on the underlying account of global distributive justice. The paper focuses on the “doing harm argument,” under the assumption that the (...) alternative “allowing harm argument” is a more difficult route to justify redistributive wars. After highlighting several preliminary problems, the paper breaks down and assesses in depth the “doing harm argument”: the empirical premise, the rights violation that constitutes the wrong, liability and degrees of responsibility, and the conditions for justified self-defense. By drawing on principles reflected in criminal law, this paper argues that a general “doing harm argument” for redistributive wars is unconvincing, while a reinterpretation of that argument could theoretically give rise to a just cause for war. (shrink)

Saint Augustine, being seen as one of the first just war theorists, famously stated that the true object of war is peace.1And while just war theory is often said to be the leading position on the morality of war, today, it is struggling to keep up with the changing international reality. It is premised upon a certain conception of war - as armed conflict between two states - and on a clear demarcation line between the situation of war and the (...) situation of peace. This however, seems to no longer fit the political reality. More often than not, we find ourselves in a grey area. This ‘new’ political reality, the changed character of war, and the often blurry boundaries between war and peace, pose serious challenges to just war theory. This paper analyzes one solution: an extension of the bipartite conception of the theory. A branch called jus ante bellum, preventive peacemaking, is sometimes suggested to precede jus ad bellum. And jus post bellum, justice after the war, is the welcomed branch that could provide post war guidance. This paper explores what it means to adopt these branches. What does it bring us to extend the theory? It is presumed that it would benefit the goal of just war theory, that Augustine already pointed at: limiting war and realizing a ‘just and durable peace’. But is an extension really a good idea? There are several reasons why we should be careful to regard these arguably important issues within the parameters of just war theory. (shrink)