Abstract
Cosmopolitan War is characterized by a tension between moral demandingness and moral permissiveness. On the one hand, Fabre is strongly committed to the value of each and all human beings as precious individuals whose value does not depend on their national or other affiliation. This commitment leads to serious constraints on what may be done to others in both individual and national self-defense. Yet the book is also unambiguously permissive. It opens the gate to far more wars than traditional just war theory would ever permit, in particular to what Fabre has dubbed ‘subsistence wars’, and it rejects the most fundamental constraint imposed by traditional jus in bello, namely, the prohibition against the deliberate killing of civilians. While both the demanding and the permissive aspects of the book seem troublesome to me, the latter seem more so and most of my paper is devoted to a critical examination of them. In the last part of the paper, I point to a different outlook to the one defended in the book and try to show that this outlook is less foreign to Fabre’s outlook than one might expect.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The completion of this paper was facilitated by the time afforded me when I enjoyed a visiting fellowship at the Centre for Advanced Studies, ‘Justitia Amplificata’, Goethe University Frankfurt, in January–February 2013.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Statman, D. Fabre’s Crusade for Justice: Why We Should Not Join. Law and Philos 33, 337–360 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-013-9186-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-013-9186-1