TY - JOUR
T1 - Just War Theory
T2 - Revisionists Versus Traditionalists
AU - Lazar, Seth
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/5/11
Y1 - 2017/5/11
N2 - Contemporary just war theory is divided into two broad camps: revisionists and traditionalists. Traditionalists seek to provide moral foundations for something close to current international law, and in particular the laws of armed conflict. Although they propose improvements, they do so cautiously. Revisionists argue that international law is at best a pragmatic fiction-it lacks deeper moral foundations. In this article, I present the contemporary history of analytical just war theory, from the origins of contemporary traditionalist just war theory in Michael Walzer's work to the revisionist critique of Walzer and the subsequent revival of traditionalism. I discuss central questions of methodology, as well as consider the morality of resorting to war and the morality of conduct in war. I show that although the revisionists exposed philosophical shortcomings in Walzer's arguments, their radical conclusions should prompt us not to reject the broad contemporary consensus, but instead to seek better arguments to underpin it.
AB - Contemporary just war theory is divided into two broad camps: revisionists and traditionalists. Traditionalists seek to provide moral foundations for something close to current international law, and in particular the laws of armed conflict. Although they propose improvements, they do so cautiously. Revisionists argue that international law is at best a pragmatic fiction-it lacks deeper moral foundations. In this article, I present the contemporary history of analytical just war theory, from the origins of contemporary traditionalist just war theory in Michael Walzer's work to the revisionist critique of Walzer and the subsequent revival of traditionalism. I discuss central questions of methodology, as well as consider the morality of resorting to war and the morality of conduct in war. I show that although the revisionists exposed philosophical shortcomings in Walzer's arguments, their radical conclusions should prompt us not to reject the broad contemporary consensus, but instead to seek better arguments to underpin it.
KW - Discrimination
KW - Ethics of killing
KW - Humanitarian intervention
KW - Moral equality of combatants
KW - National defense
KW - Noncombatant immunity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019437633&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-112706
DO - 10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-112706
M3 - Review article
SN - 1094-2939
VL - 20
SP - 37
EP - 54
JO - Annual Review of Political Science
JF - Annual Review of Political Science
ER -