Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Neo-Orthodoxy in the Morality of War

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Jus Cogens Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent decades, revisionist philosophers have radically challenged the orthodox just war theory championed by Michael Walzer in the 1970s. This review considers two new contributions to the debate, Benbaji and Statman’s War by Agreement and Ripstein’s Kant and the Law of War, which aim to defend the traditional war convention against the revisionist attack. The review investigates the two books’ respective contractarian and Kantian foundations for the war convention, their contrast with the revisionist challenge, and their points of disagreement. Building on the responses to Ripstein in the edited collection, The Public Uses of Coercion and Force, and providing an overview of the broader debate, the review offers an analysis of the two books’ positions on the relationship between the morality and laws of war, on just cause and the crime of aggression, and on the equality between just and unjust combatants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Conventionalism, in a nutshell, is an interpretative method aiming at articulating the principles guiding current practices. Walzer further develops this general methodology in Walzer (1983, 1993).

  2. In addition to McMahan, other influential revisionist accounts include Fabre (2012), Frowe (2014), and Rodin (2002). For an overview of the debate, see Lazar (2017).

  3. For recent influential contributions to this debate, see Haque (2017), Lamb (2013), McMahan (2008), Meisels (2012), Rodin (2011), Shue (2013), Tadros (2020), and Waldron (2018).

  4. This relationship between “deep morality” and Cohen’s ultimate normative principles is often overlooked, although see Elster (2011). On the relationship between Walzer’s account and political realism, see Hendrickson (1997).

  5. See Johan Olstroom (PCF, 133–150) on distributive wars and the distinction between Grotian view on war of necessity and Fabre’s view on distributive justice wars.

  6. Thomas Mertens, for example, argues that in the Rechtslehre, Kant merely provides a descriptive, and not a prescriptive account (PCF, 43–51), and Katrin Flikschuh’s chapter presents an even more radical critique of Ripstein’s metaphysics of Right and its requirement of closure (PCF, 117–132).

  7. Interestingly, for both WBA and KLW, humanitarian intervention might be justified in extreme and exceptional conditions and requiring a wide coalition of state or the authorization of the UN Security Council (see KLW 85, fn. 26, and 102, fn. 2.; WBA 170). The question of preventative war is a bit more complex. WBA essentially adopts a prohibition on preventative wars, although Benbaji and Statman maintain that “in rare cases, states might be justified in violating their contractual duty not to use force” (78). Ripstein’s view seems stricter (see KLW 87–88 in particular), but see the contribution by Ester Herlin- Karnell’s chapter in PCF (pp. 186–203).

  8. Stilz develops this view further in her book, Territorial Sovereignty (Stilz, 2019).

  9. Rainer Forst’s contribution to PCF also focuses on the “paradox of peace,” by which the constitutive concept of peace essentially allows for (past) might to make right (PCF, 32–42).

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the Editor and reviewers at Jus Cogens, as well as to Michael Gross and Steven Klein for their invaluable feedback on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lior Erez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests. 

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erez, L. Neo-Orthodoxy in the Morality of War. Jus Cogens 4, 317–328 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42439-022-00058-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42439-022-00058-5

Keywords

Navigation