The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 81–102 | Cite as

The Logical Structure of Just War Theory

Article

Abstract

A survey of just war theory literature reveals the existence of quite different lists of principles. This apparent arbitrariness raises a number of questions: What is the relation between ad bellum and in bello principles? Why are there so many of the former and so few of the latter? What order is there among the various principles? To answer these questions, I first draw on some recent work by Jeff McMahan to show that ad bellum and in bello principles are not, as often portrayed, independent—the justice of conduct in war largely presupposes the justice of the recourse to war. Undermining this independence claim is one important step toward revealing the unified logical structure of just war theory. I then argue that we can see the dependence of the jus in bello upon the jus ad bellum, not just in the content of certain principles, but also in the structure of the two sets of principles: I construct a one-to-one mapping between ad bellum and in bello principles. In doing so, I argue also that the shared structure successfully finds place for the questions central to the evaluation of the morality of war: what is a sufficient provocation to use force, what objectives may be sought by force, why or for what ends, who has authority to decide to use force, and when or in what circumstances? Despite variations in expression, the theory allows for a coherent and comprehensive evaluation of morality in warfare.

Keywords

Just war theory jus ad bellum jus in bello Jeff McMahan 

References

  1. Anscombe, Elizabeth. 1981. War and murder. In Anscombe, Elizabeth Ethics, religion, and politics, 51–61. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, St. Thomas. 1993. Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics (trans: Litzinger, C.I.). Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books.Google Scholar
  3. Biddle, Tami Davis. 2002. Rhetoric and reality in air warfare. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, Martin. 2004. The moral warrior. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. de Vitoria, Francisco. 1991. On the law of war. In Francisco de Vitoria: Political writings, ed. Anthony Pagden, and Jeremy Lawrance, 293–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Detter, Ingrid. 2000. The law of war, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hartle, Anthony. 2004. Moral issues in military decision making, 2nd ed. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  8. Hurka, Thomas. 2005. Proportionality in the morality of war. Philosophy & Public Affairs 33: 34–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, James Turner. 1999. Morality and contemporary warfare. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kemp, Kenneth. 1988. Just-war theory: A reconceptualization. Public Affairs Quarterly 2: 57–74.Google Scholar
  11. McMahan, Jeff. 2004. The ethics of killing in war. Ethics 114: 693–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McMahan, Jeff. 2005. Just cause for war. Ethics and International Affairs 19: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McMahan, Jeff. 2009. Killing in war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McMahan, Jeff. Forthcoming. The right way to fight. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Murphy, Jeffrie. 1986. The killing of the innocent. In War, morality, and the military profession, 2nd ed, ed. Malham Wakin, 341–354. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  16. Orend, Brian. 2006. The morality of war. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  17. Orend, Brian. 2005. War. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  18. Russell, Frederick. 1975. The just war in the middle ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Toner, Christopher. 2004. Just war and graduated discrimination. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 78: 649–665.Google Scholar
  20. Walzer, Michael. 1992. Just and unjust wars, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of St. ThomasSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations