This feminist critique of just war reasoning argues for an expansion of responsibility for harms inflicted on civilians in war.

2021 CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title Moral Responsibility in Twenty-First-Century Warfare explores the complex relationship between just war theory and the ethics of autonomous weapons systems (AWS). One of the challenges facing ethicists of war, particularly just war theorists, is that AWS is an applicative concept that seems, in many ways, to lie beyond the human(ist) scope of the just war theory tradition. The book examines the various ethical gaps between just war theory and the legal and moral status of AWS, addresses the limits of both traditional and revisionist just war theory, and proposes ways of bridging some of these gaps. It adopts a dualistic notion of moral responsibility—or differing, related notions of moral responsibility and legitimate authority—to study the conflicts and contradictions of legitimizing the autonomous weapons that are designed to secure peace and neutralize the effects of violence. Focusing on the changing conditions and dynamics of accountability, responsibility, autonomy, and rights in twenty-first-century warfare, the volume sheds light on the effects of violence and the future ethics of modern warfare.

When it comes to thinking about war and warriors, first there was Achilles, and then the rest followed. The choice of the term warrior is an important one for this discussion. While there has been extensive discussion on what counts as military professionalism, that is what makes a soldier, sailor or other military personnel a professional, the warrior archetype (varied for the various roles and service branches) still holds sway in the military self-conception, rooted as it is in the more existential notions of war, honor and meaning. In this volume, Kaurin uses Achilles as a touch stone for discussing the warrior, military ethics and the aspects of contemporary warfare that go by the name of 'asymmetrical war.' The title of the book cuts two ways-Achilles as a warrior archetype to help us think through the moral implications and challenges posed by asymmetrical warfare, but also as an archetype of our adversaries to help us think about asymmetric opponents.

This book analyses the concept of military necessity and just war thinking, and argues that it should be seen as a vital moral principle for leaders. The principle of military necessity is well-understood in the manuals of modern militaries and is recognized in the war convention. It is the idea that battlefield commanders should make every effort to win on a local battlefield, within legal means, and using proportionate and discriminating weapons and tactics. Every legal textbook on war includes military necessity as a foundational principle within the jus in bello (ethics of fighting war) alongside principles of proportionality and distinction, and it is taught in every Western military academy. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross lauds the concept as a cardinal principle of warfare. However, unlike legal scholarship, pick up a book by almost any just war thinker in philosophy, theology, or the social sciences, and the concept is missing altogether. This volume returns military necessity to just war thinking and lays out the argument for doing so. Each contributor taps into one of the many dimensions of military necessity, such as its relationship to jus ad bellum (ethics of going to war) categories (e.g. right intention), its relationship to jus in bello categories, or its application in foreign policy and military doctrine. Case studies in the book point out the practical moral dimensions of military necessity in cases from the targeted killing of terrorists to battlefield decisions that led to the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima. This book will be of interest to students of just war theory, military ethics, statecraft and International Relations.

As space develops as a potential war fighting domain, so does the need to have ethical scrutiny. Since the 1960s there have been core space treaties that together with national laws, provide a clear framework for both military and civilian space activities, yet ethical questions still exist around space warfare. Is it appropriate to respond kinetically on earth to a threat in space? Does just war theory apply in space and does the remoteness of space lower or raise the threshold for armed conflicts? Will the creation of new space forces start a space arms race? New combat environments also create a number of new challenges, including whether future war in space will be conducted by robots or space marines, and how the dual-use nature of satellites will impact on their permissibility as targets in any future conflict. As technologies become more widespread, space may be threatened by the likes of non-state groups and rogue states, leading to a need to inhibit their movement in space. In space, differences are magnified; resources are especially scarce, risks are multiplied, and specialized medical care is a world away. The physical and psychological distance between combatants in modern warfare applies also to space and the impacts of remote warfare need to be considered including the potential for moral injury and psychological trauma. With greater military power comes greater responsibility and this responsibility is carried out at the end of a chain of decisions and technologies. This book's relevancy will not be lost on students at service academies and staff colleges in preparing them for the task of emphasizing ethical responsibility in space to those whom they will lead in the future.

This book comprises essays that focus on a range of thinkers who challenge the boundaries of the just war tradition. The ethics of war scholarship has become a rigid and highly disciplined activity, closely associated with a very particular canon of thinkers. This volume moves beyond this by presenting thinkers not typically regarded as part of that canon but who have interesting and potentially important things to say about the ethics of war. The book presents 20 profile essays on an eclectic cast of heretics, humanists, and radicals, from ancient Greece to the twenty-first century, who lived through and theorized about violence. The book asks how ethics of war scholars might benefit from engaging with them. Some of these thinkers engage directly with—to augment or criticize—the just war tradition, while others contribute to military thinking across the ages, pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable in war. Many proffer alternative moral frameworks regarding the legitimacy of political violence. The present volume thus invites scholars to reconsider the ethics of war in a way that challenges the standard delineation between just war theory, realism, and pacifism and to reflect on how those positions might inform our own approach to these matters. This book will be of much interest to students of just war theory, ethics of war, war studies, and International Relations.

A groundbreaking history of the ethics of war in the ancient Near East Origins of the Just War reveals the incredible richness and complexity of ethical thought about war in the three millennia preceding the Greco-Roman period, establishing the extent to which ancient just war thought prefigured much of what we now consider to be the building blocks of the Western just war tradition. In this incisive and elegantly written book, Rory Cox traces the earliest ideas concerning the complex relationship between war, ethics and justice. Excavating the ethical thought of three ancient Near Eastern cultures—Egyptian, Hittite and Israelite—he demonstrates that the history of the just war is considerably more ancient and geographically diffuse than previously assumed. Cox shows how the emergence of just war thought was grounded in a desire to rationalise, sacralise and ultimately to legitimise the violence of war. Rather than restraining or condemning warfare, the earliest ethical thought about war reflected an urge to justify state violence. Cox terms this presumption in favour of war ius pro bello—the “right for war”—characterizing it as a meeting point of both abstract and pragmatic concerns. Drawing on a diverse range of ancient sources, Origins of the Just War argues that the same imperative still underlies many of the assumptions of contemporary just war thought and highlights the risks of applying moral absolutism to the fraught ethical arena of war.

The first major philosophical treatment of contingent pacifism, offering an account of pacifism from the just war tradition.

With a new foreword by noted theologian and ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, this classic text on war and the ethics of modern statecraft written at the height of the Vietnam era in 1968 speaks to a new generation of readers. Characterized by a sophisticated yet back-to-basics approach, The Just War begins with the assumption that force is a fact in political life which must either be reckoned with or succumbed to. It then grapples with modern challenges to traditional moral principles of "just conduct" in war, the "morality of deterrence," and a "just war theory of statecraft."