Just War Theory

Abstract

Abstract War unleashes deadly violence and destruction and inverts the normal codes and conventions of society: killing, maiming, and injuring become justifiable; damage to land, resources, and buildings a normal occurrence; and the seizure of people and property a regularity. Following a century that has accustomed us to think about war in terms of totalitarian effects and total consequences, of genocidal campaigns, of the obliteration of cities and the threat of mutually assured destruction with atomic weapons, it may seem an arcane proclamation that war's reach and vehemence ought to be restrained. Yet that is what the just war conventions seek to explore and to uphold as guides to human action. While the pacifist rejects war absolutely and thereby contends that all acts within war are immoral and inexcusable and the militarist declares that in war (as in love) all is fair (Holmes, 1989), the just war theorist takes a middle position, acknowledging that should war break out, a range of considerations concerning its justification and the procedures that soldiers follow ought to be maintained as guides to ensure, in effect, that some sanctuaries from war's evils are acknowledged (Clark, 1988; Norman, 1995; Walzer, 1977).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 59 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.