Philosophy and Ethics of Political Violence
Week 2
Ashgate Research Companion. Chapter 11
(Just War Theory, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow – Paul Robinson)
When can war be justified, at what actions?
Not a single ‘theory’ at all -> maybe prefer to speak of a just war ‘tradition’
Arises from Roman and Christian ideas (conclusively favor of the ethics of just war)
- Still remaining a framework for discussion within the church
- The bible gives no clear cut answers
Influence of secular philosophy – leading to a fusion of faith and reason
- Imposing obligations of rational justification alongside scriptural authority
Lying behind many principles of the international law
Occupying middle ground between the extremes of pacifism and holy war
Can be designed to limit the use of violence (or justify the use too)
- Criterion: “right intention” “non-combatant immunity” “discrimination” “proportionality” “supreme
emergency”
The position of the church
- Before and after the conversion of Constantine is different
(before= overwhelmingly pacifist, after = employ violence to protect the empire)
- After authority, meaning not allowing harm to be done to others, one to act to protect others
- But state as an institution given my God, army as meritorious
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
- Peace not absence of war, but rather a “tranquility of order”
- War as a “lesser evil”
What matters are one’s intentions = acts driven by a love of God and fellow humans
- Person / object / cause / state of mind / authority
- Thomas Aquinas: peace not merely about absence of war, but failing to protect others
Doctrine of double effect: intention + act of self-defense (this can be controversial)
1) the authority of the prince 2) just cause 3) rightful intention
Collateral damage is permissible as long as the target is a legitimate one and the damage is
proportionate to the military value of the target
- Medieval scholars’ lists of criteria = reduce complex moral problems to a simple check sheet (became
the basic presumption against war)
Fundamental differences exist about the purpose and meaning of just war theory
- For some, war is an evil
- For some, the theory is permissive (depends entirely on the circumstances)
BUT just war, while possible in theory, was scarcely possible at all in reality
Ius ad bellum: just cause / aim of peace / right intention / legitimate authority / public declaration of war /
reasonable chance of success / proportionality (war must do more good than harm) / last resort /
comparative justice
, Ius in bello: discrimination or non-combatant immunity / proportionality
But there are still many philosophers in doubt on the usefulness of the just war theory = it seems to make
war more common and seemingly morally acceptable
Ius post bellum: to regulate behavior after wars as well as during them (proportionality and publicity /
rights vindication / discrimination / punishment / compensation / rehabilitation)
Current interest in just war theory = depends in large developments in international affairs (context-
dependent)
Justice, Peace, and History: A Reappraisal (Alexis Keller)
Just Peace
To apply methods of research on conflict resolution -> affected by the ‘call for justice’
Research into political psychology and international relations
1. Introduction
Common conception of international justice (can get around the inherent problem of cultural diversity –
different perceptions of justice)
- Liberal conception of international law based on a society of states
- Existence of “reasonable pluralism”
- The intellectual context in which international law was formed => reflected new balance of power
between states
- All agreed to say that peace was essentially a matter of law created and protected by institutions
(tailored for Europe and its monarchs)
- Codified the terms for membership in the community of states
Drew boundaries between those who belonged and who did not
Moral community bound by mutually agreed rules of conduct
The story of expansion of international society
- Story of subjugation and domination of other
- Universalizing discourse about law (culture=nation=state)
- Search for “universal peace” (no effort made to integrate non-European peoples and non-European
visions of history) = based on a homogenous view of cultures
Does international law have the capacity to conceptualize such a peace?
2. The Law of Nations and the Rights to Non-European Peoples
- Hugo Grotius: inventing a new way of talking about international relations
(1) No significant moral difference between individuals and states
(2) Natural man was sociable (role of self-interest)
Working from the precepts of natural law
Humans have to shape it through consensus
Derived from jurisprudence (historical and biblical examples)
Defining states as the sole agents capable of promulgating law of nations
Possibility of a law common of all people
Remained deeply Eurocentric (agree in conquering the world)
Barren and waste land in territory must be given to foreigners
A group of individuals with an institutional identity is appropriate
Underlying premise was that state-building is inevitable and indigenous populations non-existent
Possession of the material world was a fundamental right
Week 2
Ashgate Research Companion. Chapter 11
(Just War Theory, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow – Paul Robinson)
When can war be justified, at what actions?
Not a single ‘theory’ at all -> maybe prefer to speak of a just war ‘tradition’
Arises from Roman and Christian ideas (conclusively favor of the ethics of just war)
- Still remaining a framework for discussion within the church
- The bible gives no clear cut answers
Influence of secular philosophy – leading to a fusion of faith and reason
- Imposing obligations of rational justification alongside scriptural authority
Lying behind many principles of the international law
Occupying middle ground between the extremes of pacifism and holy war
Can be designed to limit the use of violence (or justify the use too)
- Criterion: “right intention” “non-combatant immunity” “discrimination” “proportionality” “supreme
emergency”
The position of the church
- Before and after the conversion of Constantine is different
(before= overwhelmingly pacifist, after = employ violence to protect the empire)
- After authority, meaning not allowing harm to be done to others, one to act to protect others
- But state as an institution given my God, army as meritorious
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
- Peace not absence of war, but rather a “tranquility of order”
- War as a “lesser evil”
What matters are one’s intentions = acts driven by a love of God and fellow humans
- Person / object / cause / state of mind / authority
- Thomas Aquinas: peace not merely about absence of war, but failing to protect others
Doctrine of double effect: intention + act of self-defense (this can be controversial)
1) the authority of the prince 2) just cause 3) rightful intention
Collateral damage is permissible as long as the target is a legitimate one and the damage is
proportionate to the military value of the target
- Medieval scholars’ lists of criteria = reduce complex moral problems to a simple check sheet (became
the basic presumption against war)
Fundamental differences exist about the purpose and meaning of just war theory
- For some, war is an evil
- For some, the theory is permissive (depends entirely on the circumstances)
BUT just war, while possible in theory, was scarcely possible at all in reality
Ius ad bellum: just cause / aim of peace / right intention / legitimate authority / public declaration of war /
reasonable chance of success / proportionality (war must do more good than harm) / last resort /
comparative justice
, Ius in bello: discrimination or non-combatant immunity / proportionality
But there are still many philosophers in doubt on the usefulness of the just war theory = it seems to make
war more common and seemingly morally acceptable
Ius post bellum: to regulate behavior after wars as well as during them (proportionality and publicity /
rights vindication / discrimination / punishment / compensation / rehabilitation)
Current interest in just war theory = depends in large developments in international affairs (context-
dependent)
Justice, Peace, and History: A Reappraisal (Alexis Keller)
Just Peace
To apply methods of research on conflict resolution -> affected by the ‘call for justice’
Research into political psychology and international relations
1. Introduction
Common conception of international justice (can get around the inherent problem of cultural diversity –
different perceptions of justice)
- Liberal conception of international law based on a society of states
- Existence of “reasonable pluralism”
- The intellectual context in which international law was formed => reflected new balance of power
between states
- All agreed to say that peace was essentially a matter of law created and protected by institutions
(tailored for Europe and its monarchs)
- Codified the terms for membership in the community of states
Drew boundaries between those who belonged and who did not
Moral community bound by mutually agreed rules of conduct
The story of expansion of international society
- Story of subjugation and domination of other
- Universalizing discourse about law (culture=nation=state)
- Search for “universal peace” (no effort made to integrate non-European peoples and non-European
visions of history) = based on a homogenous view of cultures
Does international law have the capacity to conceptualize such a peace?
2. The Law of Nations and the Rights to Non-European Peoples
- Hugo Grotius: inventing a new way of talking about international relations
(1) No significant moral difference between individuals and states
(2) Natural man was sociable (role of self-interest)
Working from the precepts of natural law
Humans have to shape it through consensus
Derived from jurisprudence (historical and biblical examples)
Defining states as the sole agents capable of promulgating law of nations
Possibility of a law common of all people
Remained deeply Eurocentric (agree in conquering the world)
Barren and waste land in territory must be given to foreigners
A group of individuals with an institutional identity is appropriate
Underlying premise was that state-building is inevitable and indigenous populations non-existent
Possession of the material world was a fundamental right
