Relevant bibliographies by topics / Just war theory / Journal articles
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Just war theory.

Journal articles on the topic 'Just war theory'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 9 March 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Just war theory.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Kaplan, Shawn. "Just War Theory." Philosophy in the Contemporary World 19, no. 2 (2012): 4–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/pcw20121922.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Yoder, John H. "Just war theory." History of European Ideas 17, no. 2-3 (March 1993): 341–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-6599(93)90306-b.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

کاکەامین, زانا, and ئومێد فتاح. "تیۆرى جه‌نگى ڕەوا له‌ سیاسەتی نێوده‌وڵه‌تیدا “لێکۆڵینەوەیەکی تیۆری." Journal for Political and Security Studies 3, no. 6 (December 1, 2020): 55–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.31271/jopss.10039.

Full text
Abstract:
Just war is a theory that contains moral and legal justifications, and governs the time and circumstances in which states are allowed to enter the war. Therefore, just war theory and the laws of war are reflecting to each other. The first has a long history of legitimizing war and its appearance possibly goes back to the Greek and Roman civilisation as the public interest was a reasoning for their wars. In the Middle-Ages, religious authority played a significant role in legitimizing the use of force by political authority. In the modern era, the nature of war and the principles of intervention have undergone changes, so that the implementation of that theory built and established the nation-state in the West. In contemporary times, Michael Walzer developed the theory so that individual rights became a central principle of just war. The main question of this study is whether war can be legitimized and reasonable or when intervention is legitimate? As well as how the forces are used? This study examines and explains the mentioned questions by presenting the roots and principles of that theory. Thus, it is assumed that a war is just when it is decided through the principles of a just war theory. This theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. It can be concluded that Just war is a last resort and that its essential aim is always peace and Justice.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Cook, Martin L. "Applied Just War Theory." Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics 18 (1998): 199–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/asce19981817.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

van der Linden, Harry. "Questioning Just War Theory." Radical Philosophy Review 8, no. 2 (2005): 235–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/radphilrev20058218.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Orend, Brian. "Kant's Just War Theory." Journal of the History of Philosophy 37, no. 2 (1999): 323–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hph.2008.0847.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Carter, Jacoby Adeshei. "Just/New War Theory." Philosophy in the Contemporary World 16, no. 2 (2009): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/pcw200916213.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Yakushev, Leonid V. "Jus Post Bellum in Just War Theory." Ethical Thought 19, no. 2 (2019): 128–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.21146//2074-4870-2019-19-2-128-136.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Reichberg, Gregory. "Preventive War in Classical Just War Theory." Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d'histoire du droit international 9, no. 1 (2007): 5–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/138819907x187288.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Stanar, Dragan. "Just war theory in Njegos’s works." Zbornik Matice srpske za drustvene nauke, no. 179 (2021): 361–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/zmsdn2179361s.

Full text
Abstract:
Modern just war theory represents more of a tradition of thoughts on ethical issues of war than a theory per se. However, philosophical attitudes on war coming from authors from non-western cultures, including Serbian culture, are often left outside of this tradition. Author aims to demonstrate that there are clear ideas on ethical attributes of war and warring in Njegos?s work. By analyzing Njegos?s views expressed in his most significant works, through the prism of criteria of the classical elements of the modern just war theory (Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello), author demonstrates the existence of Serbian tradition of thought on ethics of war and warring. In this way, modern just war theory is supplemented and enriched with the Serbian historical perspective on justness of war and in war. Simultaneously, author highlights the challenges and perils of interpretation of philosophical ideas without considering the historical context, specific political-culturological circumstances and personality of the idea author. This is of a particular contemporary relevance, as misinterpretations of Njegos?s ideas on war and justice in war are often used to further fuel national antagonisms and destabilize the region.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
11

Kainz, Howard. "IS "JUST WAR" THEORY JUSTIFIABLE?" Journal of Social Philosophy 27, no. 2 (September 1996): 158–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.1996.tb00243.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
12

GILBERT, PAUL. "Just War: theory and application." Journal of Applied Philosophy 4, no. 2 (October 1987): 217–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1987.tb00218.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
13

Lang, Anthony F. "Just War as Political Theory." Political Theory 44, no. 2 (December 17, 2015): 289–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591715621505.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
14

Cebula, Adam. "Just War Theory Symposium: Introduction." Philosophia 48, no. 4 (July 24, 2020): 1289–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00249-8.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
15

Scholz, Sally. "Just War Theory, Crimes of War, and War Rape." International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20, no. 1 (2006): 143–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ijap20062011.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
16

Denyer, Nicholas. "Just war." Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 46 (March 2000): 137–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1358246100010420.

Full text
Abstract:
The innocent are immune. We must never, that is, make the object of any violent attack those who bear no responsibility for doing wrong to others; and only with grave reason and in extreme circumstances should we be prepared to cause them any incidental harm as we press home a violent attack against those who are its legitimate objects. This principle of the immunity of the innocent seems almost self-evidently true. This is not to say that the principle is incapable of further development and articulation, unsusceptible of marginal qualification, or underivable from deeper principles. It does however mean that any moral theory which denies this principle altogether will be something that only a fool or a knave could accept.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
17

Park, Ju-Hoon, and Ki-Chul Park. "Contested War Ethics in Light of Future Warfare Trends : Focus on Just War Theory." Journal of Northeast Asian Studies 27, no. 3 (September 30, 2022): 55–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.21807/jnas.2022.09.104.055.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
18

Ngai, Ting Chun. "Was Iraq War a “Just War” or Just a War? An Analysis from the Perspectives of Just War Theory." Open Journal of Political Science 09, no. 02 (2019): 373–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2019.92020.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
19

McDonald, Jack. "Information, Privacy, and Just War Theory." Ethics & International Affairs 34, no. 3 (2020): 379–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0892679420000477.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractAre the sources of a combatant's knowledge in war morally relevant? This article argues that privacy is relevant to just war theory in that it draws attention to privacy harms associated with the conduct of war. Since we cannot assume that information is made available to combatants in a morally neutral manner, we must therefore interrogate the relationship between privacy harms and the acts that they enable in war. Here, I argue that there is ample evidence that we cannot discount the analysis of privacy harms in war, and that analysis of such harms requires us to examine social goods. I develop this point to demonstrate the problems that this poses for aspects of revisionist just war theory; namely, reductivism and individualism. In order to evaluate the moral consequences of privacy harms in war, we must understand the unilateral and adversarial character of balancing privacy harms against social goods in the context of war, which, in turn, requires that we consider social goods and social institutions as objects of moral evaluation. Further, concepts drawn from privacy scholarship, such as Helen Nissenbaum's concept of contextual integrity, enable us to identify a range of moral problems associated with contemporary war that deserve further attention from just war theorists.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
20

WILLIAMS, ROBERT E., and DAN CALDWELL. "Jus Post Bellum: Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace." International Studies Perspectives 7, no. 4 (November 2006): 309–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2006.00256.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
21

Langan, John. "The Just-War Theory after the Gulf War." Theological Studies 53, no. 1 (March 1992): 95–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004056399205300106.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
22

Shalom, Stephen R. "Just War Theory: Restraint or Enabler of War?" Critical Asian Studies 45, no. 3 (September 2013): 491–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2013.829316.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
23

Crawford, Neta C. "Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War." Perspective on Politics 1, no. 1 (March 2003): 5–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592703000021.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
24

Calcutt, Bill. "Just war theory and the war on terror." Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism 6, no. 2 (October 2011): 108–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2011.605125.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
25

Hong, Ki-Won. "Hugo Grotius’ Theory of Just War: Jus ad bellum." Korean Journal of Law and Society 56 (December 31, 2017): 245–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.33446/kjls.56.9.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
26

Yakushev, Leonid. "Contemporary Transformations of Just War Theory." Ethical Thought 16, no. 2 (2016): 142–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2016-16-2-142-154.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
27

English, Parker. "PREFERENTIAL HIRING AND JUST WAR THEORY." Journal of Social Philosophy 25, no. 2 (September 1994): 119–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.1994.tb00326.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
28

Lazar, Seth. "Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists." Annual Review of Political Science 20, no. 1 (May 11, 2017): 37–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-112706.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
29

Sussmann, Naomi. "Can just war theory delegitimate terrorism?" European Journal of Political Theory 12, no. 4 (March 7, 2013): 425–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474885112464478.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
30

Dombrowski, Daniel A. "Just War Theory, Afghanistan, and Walzer." International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24, no. 1 (2010): 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ijap20102411.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
31

SIMPSON, PETER. "Just War Theory and the IRA." Journal of Applied Philosophy 3, no. 1 (March 1986): 73–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1986.tb00366.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
32

Breen, Keith. "Truce thinking and just war theory." Journal of Global Ethics 13, no. 1 (January 2, 2017): 14–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2017.1324510.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
33

Byrne, Edmund F. "Just War Theory and Peace Studies." Teaching Philosophy 32, no. 3 (2009): 297–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200932330.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
34

Hošman, Mirek Tobiáš. "Download Just War Theory: Feminist Critique as a Practical Alternative to Revisionism." Politologický časopis - Czech Journal of Political Science 26, no. 3 (2019): 164–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/pc2019-3-164.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
35

Long, Graham. "Disputes in just war theory and meta-theory." European Journal of Political Theory 11, no. 2 (March 20, 2012): 209–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474885112440907.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
36

McMahan, Jeff, and Robert McKim. "The Just War and The Gulf War." Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23, no. 4 (December 1993): 501–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1993.10717333.

Full text
Abstract:
Discussions of the morality of the Gulf War have tended to embrace the traditional theory of the just war uncritically and to apply its tenets in a mechanical and unimaginative fashion. We believe, by contrast, that careful reflection of the Gulf War reveals that certain principles of the traditional theory are oversimplifications that require considerable refinement. Our aims, therefore, are both practical and theoretical. We hope to contribute to a better understanding of the ethics both of war in general and of the Gulf War in particular.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
37

Patterson, Eric. "Just War in the 21st Century: Reconceptualizing Just War Theory after September 11." International Politics 42, no. 1 (March 2005): 116–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800100.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
38

Shaveko, N. A. "JUS POST BELLUM AS A SECTION OF THE THEORY OF JUST WAR." Вестник Удмуртского университета. Социология. Политология. Международные отношения 6, no. 3 (September 16, 2022): 359–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.35634/2587-9030-2022-6-3-359-368.

Full text
Abstract:
The article considers problems which are raised within the theory of just war in relation to the question of a just end to a war (jus post bellum). It is shown that in modern academic literature there is not even a clear understanding of the subject of jus post bellum, not to mention a broad consensus on specific moral issues. All this distinguishes this section of the theory of just war from other sections. There are three groups of questions that are raised by various authors under the heading of jus post bellum: 1) when should hostilities cease? 2) who should be held responsible for war crimes? 3) how to guarantee peace and security for the future after the end of the war? On each of these issues, the author of the article presents the points of view of the most famous authors who study the theory of just war, and also substantiates his own point of view. In particular, it is concluded that war must be stopped when the principles of jus ad bellum (right to war) cease to be satisfied. The principles of just cause, last resort and proportionality should be of particular importance. The scope of responsibility of political leaders, military commanders, ordinary combatants, as well as the civilian population in violation of the principles of just war is substantiated. Despite the fact that the responsibility of the civilian population for its political passivity is fundamentally permissible, the difficulty lies in the fact that the very criteria of legal capacity are largely guided by the typical characteristics of the civilian population. It is shown that a peace treaty or other act ending the war, in order to become a guarantee of peace and security in the future, must earn legitimacy from the population of all the warring states. Another such guarantee is the reform of the UN in order to increase its effectiveness. Finally, it is proved that post-war reconstruction (aimed at security, rule of law and development) is the task of all parties involved and the world community as a whole.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
39

Hollis, Rosemary. "The Gulf War and Just War Theory: Right Intention." New Blackfriars 73, no. 859 (April 1992): 210–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2005.1992.tb07232.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
40

Luban, David. "Just War Theory and the Laws of War as Nonidentical Twins." Ethics & International Affairs 31, no. 4 (2017): 433–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0892679417000429.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractThis essay examines the similarities, but even more the dissimilarities, between (nonrevisionist) just war theory and the laws of war. The similarities are obvious: both just war theory and the laws of war distinguish jus ad bellum from jus in bello, and incorporate the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. The dissimilarities derive from the special character of law. Law needs binary, yes-no standards for drawing lines, for example between armed conflict and lesser forms of violence. Laws come in packages (regimes), so that changing only one law is not always practicable. And legal propositions, unlike philosophical propositions, are often detachable from their reasons and applied in unexpected and unwelcome ways. This is especially important in the stresses of battle, when rules of warfare must be usable “off the shelf” by middle- or lower-ranked personnel with no opportunity for bespoke deliberation. The essay provides contemporary illustrations of these differences.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
41

Kirkpatrick, Jesse. "Moral Injury and Revisionist Just War Theory." Ethics & International Affairs 36, no. 1 (2022): 27–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0892679422000041.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractAs part of the roundtable, “Moral Injury, Trauma, and War,” this essay explores the relationship between revisionist just war theory and moral injury. It proceeds in four sections. First, it offers a brief overview of the just war tradition, focusing on traditionalist and revisionist accounts, respectively. Next, it explores the relationship between moral injury and armed conflict. Then, it explores the links between moral injury and revisionist accounts of just war theory. Finally, by way of conclusion, the essay signals two potential complementary paths forward that future research could use to clarify the revisionist position and its link with moral injury.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
42

UGWUANYI, LAWRENCE OGBO. "TOWARDS AN AFRICAN THEORY OF JUST WAR." Revista de Estudios Africanos, no. 1 (December 30, 2020): 51–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.15366/reauam2020.1.003.

Full text
Abstract:
From 1957 when the first independent country emerged in Africa till date, Africa has fought over a hundred wars1. These wars which have been both inter-state and intra-state wars, sometimes called civil wars, provoke philosophical questions on the meaning and notion of war in African thought scheme. Were these wars just or not within an African conception of war- that is the means, manner and method of fighting war within the African experience? If the idea of just war were advanced through the African worldview, what principles would define it? What alternative and fresh values would be suggested by the theory? This article sets out to address these questions. To do this, the work will attempt to articulate an African theory of just war by mapping out what it would look like if it were informed by the norms, values, and micro-principles that characteristically drive philosophical enquiry in an indigenous African context. The work will draw from narratives about wars that have been fought in traditional African society as well as oral texts to achieve its position, which is roughly that a just war in African thought is war fought to protect the corporate harmony of a people who are bound and bonded together through land, the resources, and other symbols and traditions that make them distinct.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
43

Babic, Jovan. "Non-culpable ignorance and Just war theory." Filozofija i drustvo 18, no. 3 (2007): 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/fid0703059b.

Full text
Abstract:
The so called ?non-culpable ignorance? is an instrument to justify participating in a war on a defeated side, on condition that fighters sincerely believe that they are defending a just cause and had some valid reasons to believe in having a chance to win. Within the just war theory this instrument is needed to make both sides prima facie right, otherwise the theory would imply that those who lose are guilty in advance, especially if they are the weaker side. However, in contemporary context of criminalizing war the very concept of war is changing and becoming extremely vague. As wars are more and more ?asymmetric?, just war theory might face serious challenges regarding incorporation of ?non-culpable ignorance? within its scope, as well as difficulties in showing that justice goes with the victory, opening thus the issues of articulation of a just peace.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
44

Stanar, Dragan. "War and post-truth: Moral equality of combatants and inculpable ignorance in just war theory." Theoria, Beograd 64, no. 4 (2021): 111–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/theo2104111s.

Full text
Abstract:
This paper aims to explain the effect of the post-truth on revisionism in Just War Theory. Revisionism in JWT is based on the claim that Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello cannot be separated and that only combatants who fight on the just side are morally justified in killing. Presupposition of this argument is that combatants can and ought to know the moral status of their side. This paper will demonstrate that it is impossible to demand combatants to know whether their side is just by investigating the implications of post-truth in modern conflicts. By demonstrating the practical impossibility of combatants to know whether their side is just, author will show that the assumption of inculpable ignorance in war must remain the essence of JWT. Posttruth phenomenon only fortifies the necessity of separating Jus ad Bellum from Jus in Bello and upholding the principle of moral equality of combatants in contemporary wars.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
45

OREND, BRIAN. "Jus Post Bellum: The Perspective of a Just-War Theorist." Leiden Journal of International Law 20, no. 3 (August 30, 2007): 571–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156507004268.

Full text
Abstract:
The introduction explains how this essay articulates the issue of ‘justice after war’ from the point of view of just-war theory, and how such a view can and ought to impact upon international law, for instance by inspiring the eventual development of a new treaty, or Geneva Convention, exclusively concerned with issues of postwar justice. In the body of the essay, attention is first given to explaining why just-war theory has traditionally ignored, or even rejected, jus post bellum. Second, argument is made as to why this ignorance and rejection must be overcome, and replaced with information and inclusion. Third, principles drawing on traditional just-war theory are constructed and defended, for jus post bellum in general and for forcible postwar regime change in particular. Finally, several remaining challenges are addressed, seeking to dissolve doubts and strengthen resolve towards working for progress on this vital and topical issue of jus post bellum.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
46

Afolaranmi, Adebayo Ola. "How justifiable are Just-Wars? A critical review." African Social Science and Humanities Journal 2, no. 3 (August 18, 2021): 162–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.57040/asshj.v2i3.54.

Full text
Abstract:
This paper is a critical review of the theory of just war. The paper attempts to explain what Just-War Theory is. An overview of the history of Just War Tradition is given. There are some cited assumptions and approaches of Just-War Theory. The paper also gives some strengths and weaknesses of Just-War. The paper also gives some strengths and weaknesses of Just-War. The paper concludes with the fact that Just War Theory provides balances that must be taken into consideration when there is any necessitated war that results from inevitable conflicts. Furthermore, the paper concludes that the strengths of the theory should be built on when there is such war.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
47

Aloyo, Eamon. "Just War Theory and the Last of Last Resort." Ethics & International Affairs 29, no. 2 (2015): 187–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0892679415000064.

Full text
Abstract:
The last resort criterion has a hallowed place in the just war theory tradition. Many leading just war theory scholars accept it as a jus ad bellum requirement and some powerful politicians reference it. While there are several versions of last resort, many take it to mean that peaceful options that have a reasonable chance of achieving a just cause must be exhausted before the use of force is permissible. Its justification is straightforward and commonsensical: war is terrible, inevitably results in the deaths of numerous innocents and destruction of their property, and thus should be avoided whenever possible. I argue that last resort should be dropped from the just war tradition because its inclusion in the just war tradition can result in a greater number of harms to innocents than if the precept did not exist. What should matter morally is the severity and numbers of harms inflicted on innocents, not whether those harms are inflicted violently or nonviolently. I suggest that in the context of achieving a just cause, the only actions that are permissible are those that are likely to inflict the fewest morally weighted harms and that meet the other just war theory precepts (excluding last resort). Three accounts of last resort do not permit this, whereas while a fourth does, it is redundant with an important account of the jus ad bellum proportionality precept. Thus violent policies may be preferable in some rare circumstances to nonviolent alternatives such as non-targeted sanctions and negotiations because nonviolent policies sometimes are more likely to foreseeably and avoidably result in far greater harms to innocents than violent options.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
48

Sharma, Vaasu. "India’s 1971 Intervention :." Jindal Journal of International Affairs 2, no. 5 (December 1, 2021): 53–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.54945/jjia.v2i5.79.

Full text
Abstract:
Just War tradition is used to morally evaluate the warfare which nations wage against each other. This paper aims to employ Just War principles to the 1971 IndiaPakistan war, that witnessed humanitarian intervention by India in East Pakistan which later became Bangladesh. Whether Indian intervention during 1971 Bangladesh liberation war fulfils the criteria of ‘just’ humanitarian intervention? This paper aims to investigate this related question by examining India’s intervention in East Pakistan from the perspective of Just War Theory principles. The paper initially explains the theoretical concept of Just War theory and then explains the notion of humanitarian intervention within the realm of Just War tradition advocated by Michael Walzer. Further the paper provides a brief background of genesis of 1971 war and Pakistan’s claim to sovereignty over East Pakistan citing UN Charter. Paper then delves upon the arguments provided by the Indian side in favour of Just Humanitarian Intervention in the backdrop of increasing brutality by Pakistan. Paper further, broadly assesses India’s intervention in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and six principles associated with it and also Jus in Bello and its subsequent principles. Paper finally concludes that India’s Intervention was in conformity with Just War Principles.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
49

O'Driscoll, Cian. "The Irony of Just War." Ethics & International Affairs 32, no. 2 (2018): 227–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0892679418000321.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractBy claiming that “just war is just war,” critics suggest that just war theory both distracts from and sanitizes the horror of modern warfare by dressing it up in the language of moral principles. However, the phrase can also be taken as a reminder of why we need just war theory in the first place. It is precisely because just war is just war, with all that this implies, that we must think so carefully and so judiciously about it. Of course, one could argue that the rump of just war scholarship over the past decade has been characterized by disinterest regarding the material realities of warfare. But is this still the case? This essay examines a series of benchmark books on the ethics of war published over the past year. All three exemplify an effort to grapple with the hard facts of modern violent conflict, and they all skillfully bring diverse traditions of just war thinking into conversation with one another.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
50

Jovanovic, Milos. "The just war theory and international law." Medjunarodni problemi 59, no. 2-3 (2007): 243–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/medjp0703243j.

Full text
Abstract:
The paper provides a detailed overview of the existing relationship between the just war theory and international law. It stresses the fact that the two concepts were historically incompatible. The just war theory falls within ethics and appeals to superior principles that were not in accordance with the positivist law theory and the concept of sovereignty upon which public international law was founded. That incompatibility may at first seem as a paradox since the two concepts should be derived from a common base: the idea of justice. Further development of international law has clearly proved that law cannot be separated from the idea of justice and that is, to some extent, closely linked to some elements of natural law. The author concludes that in the domain of the use of force contemporary international law provides a legal frame, which is in accordance with the precepts of the just war theory.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the bibliographies on the topic 'Just war theory' for other source types:
Dissertations / Theses Books
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography