Widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement on the justifiable limits of war has become an increasingly complex yet vital element of global peace and conflict policies. Luís Cordeiro-Rodrigues and Danny Singh bring together a truly international cohort of philosophers, ethicists, political scientists, criminologists, sociologists, and other scholars to address the morality of war from a comparative perspective. While conceptions of when to enter war (jus ad bellum) and how to fight war (jus in bello) have been well researched in Western liberal contexts, non-Western philosophies have been largely excluded from debate. This volume seeks to correct that imbalance by addressing concrete examples alongside concepts of Confucian Yi/Rightness, Ahimsa, feminism, class struggles, Ubuntu, anarchism, pacifism, Buddhism, Islam, Jihad, among others. Comparative Just War Theory provides a global conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war in our modern world. With fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed, the book will be a valuable resource for a wide variety of students, scholars, and policymakers.

This book provides a stimulating discussion of, and introduction to, just war theory.

This book explores questions regarding the justice of war and addresses the lack of comparative perspectives on the ethics of war, particularly with respect to Islam. Focusing on the role of Islamic symbols in the rhetoric of Saddam Hussein, Kelsay provides an overview of the Islamic tradition regarding war and peace, and investigates the notion of religion as a just cause for war.

With today's world torn by violence and conflict, Richard B. Miller's study of the ethics of war could not be more timely. Miller brings together the opposed traditions of pacifism and just-war theory and puts them into a much-needed dialogue on the ethics of war. Beginning with the duty of nonviolence as a point of convergence between the two rival traditions, Miller provides an opportunity for pacifists and just-war theorists to refine their views in a dialectical exchange over a set of ethical and social questions. From the interface of these two long- standing and seemingly incompatible traditions emerges a surprisingly fruitful discussion over a common set of values, problems, and interests: the presumption against harm, the relation of justice and order, the ethics of civil disobedience, the problem of self-righteousness in moral discourse about war, the ethics of nuclear deterrence, and the need for practical reasoning about the morality of war. Miller pays critical attention to thinkers such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, as well as to modern thinkers like H. Richard Niebuhr, Paul Ramsey, Martin Luther King, Jr., James Douglass, the Berrigans, William O'Brien, Michael Walzer, and James Childress. He demonstrates how pacifism and just-war tenets can be joined around both theoretical and practical issues. Interpretations of Conflict is a work of massive scholarship and careful reasoning that should interest philosophers, theologians, and religious ethicists alike. It enhances our moral literacy about injury, suffering, and killing, and offers a compelling dialectical approach to ethics in a pluralistic society. Richard B. Miller is assistant professor of religious studies at Indiana University.

The first edition of The Morality of War was one of the most widely-read and successful books ever written on the topic. In this second edition, Brian Orend builds on the substantial strengths of the first, adding important new material on: cyber-warfare; drone attacks; the wrap-up of Iraq and Afghanistan; conflicts in Libya and Syria; and protracted struggles (like the Arab-Israeli conflict). Updated and streamlined throughout, the book offers new research tools and case studies, while keeping the winning blend of theory and history featured in the first edition. This book remains an engaging and comprehensive examination of the ethics, and practice, of war and peace in today’s world.

Jihad, with its many terrifying associations, is a term widely used today, though its meaning is poorly grasped. Few people understand the circumstances requiring a jihad, or "holy" war, or how Islamic militants justify their violent actions within the framework of the religious tradition of Islam. How Islam, with more than one billion followers, interprets jihad and establishes its precepts has become a critical issue for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim world. John Kelsay's timely and important work focuses on jihad of the sword in Islamic thought, history, and culture. Making use of original sources, Kelsay delves into the tradition of shari'a--Islamic jurisprudence and reasoning--and shows how it defines jihad as the Islamic analogue of the Western "just" war. He traces the arguments of thinkers over the centuries who have debated the legitimacy of war through appeals to shari'a reasoning. He brings us up to the present and demonstrates how contemporary Muslims across the political spectrum continue this quest for a realistic ethics of war within the Islamic tradition. Arguing the Just War in Islam provides a systematic account of how Islam's central texts interpret jihad, guiding us through the historical precedents and Qur'anic sources upon which today's claims to doctrinal truth and legitimate authority are made. In illuminating the broad spectrum of Islam's moral considerations of the just war, Kelsay helps Muslims and non-Muslims alike make sense of the possibilities for future war and peace.

This timely book analyses how different nations, religions and cultures justify the waging of war, and what limits they place on its use. The study includes the major world religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam and specific countries and regions including Russia, China and Africa. The case studies shed new light on the causes and justifications of current conflicts, providing a valuable source for those wishing to understand how different people around the world view the issue of war. The book crosses disciplinary boundaries and thus will be welcomed by scholars of international relations, philosophy, religion and history.

War is about individuals maiming and killing each other, and yet, it seems that it is also irreducibly collective, as it is fought by groups of people and more often than not for the sake of communal values such as territorial integrity and national self-determination. Cécile Fabre articulates and defends an ethical account of war in which the individual, as a moral and rational agent, is the fundamental focus for concern and respect—both as a combatant whose acts of killing need justifying and as a non-combatant whose suffering also needs justifying. She takes as her starting point a political morality to which the individual, rather than the nation-state, is central, namely cosmopolitanism. According to cosmopolitanism, individuals all matter equally, irrespective of their membership in this or that political community. Traditional war ethics already accepts this principle, since it holds that unarmed civilians are illegitimate targets even though they belong to the enemy community. However, although the traditional account of whom we may kill in wars is broadly faithful to that principle, the traditional account of why we may kill and of who may kill is not. Cosmopolitan theorists, for their part, do not address the ethical issues raised by war in any depth. Fabre's Cosmopolitan War seeks to fill this gap, and defends its account of just and unjust wars by addressing the ethics of different kinds of war: wars of national defence, wars over scarce resources, civil wars, humanitarian intervention, wars involving private military forces, and asymmetrical wars.

Issued in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the pastoral letter The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response.