Jus Post bellum: Restraint, Stabilisation and Peace records the theory of military ethics and the process of attempting to achieve a safe and lasting peace after conflict from the basis of the Just War Theory.

Leading legal, political and moral theorists discuss the normative issues that arise when war concludes and when a society strives to regain peace.

With the ending of the strategic certainties of the Cold War, the need for moral clarity over when, where and how to start, conduct and conclude war has never been greater. There has been a recent revival of interest in the just war tradition. But can a medieval theory help us answer twenty-first century security concerns? David Fisher explores how just war thinking can and should be developed to provide such guidance. His in-depth study examines philosophical challenges to just war thinking, including those posed by moral scepticism and relativism. It explores the nature and grounds of moral reasoning; the relation between public and private morality; and how just war teaching needs to be refashioned to provide practical guidance not just to politicians and generals but to ordinary service people. The complexity and difficulty of moral decision-making requires a new ethical approach - here characterised as virtuous consequentialism - that recognises the importance of both the internal quality and external effects of agency; and of the moral principles and virtues needed to enact them. Having reinforced the key tenets of just war thinking, Fisher uses these to address contemporary security issues, including the changing nature of war, military pre-emption and torture, the morality of the Iraq war, and humanitarian intervention. He concludes that the just war tradition provides not only a robust but an indispensable guide to resolve the security challenges of the twenty-first century.

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest, among both philosophers, legal scholars, and military experts, on the ethics of war. Due in part due to post 9/11 events, this resurgence is also due to a growing theoretical sophistication among scholars in this area. Recently there has been very influential work published on the justificaton of killing in self-defense and war, and the topic of the ethics of war is now more important than ever as a discrete field. The 28 commissioned chapters in this Handbook will present a comprehensive overview of the field as well as make significant and novel contributions, and collectively they will set the terms of the debate for the next decade. Lazar and Frowe will invite the leading scholars in the field to write on topics that are new to them, making the volume a compilation of fresh ideas rather than a rehash of earlier work. The volume will be dicided into five sections: Method, History, Resort, Conduct, and Aftermath. The contributors will be a mix of junior and senior figures, and will include well known scholars like Michael Walzer, Jeff McMahan, and David Rodin.

War by Agreement presents a new theory on the ethics of war. It shows that wars can be morally justified at both the ad bellum level (the political decision to go to war) and the in bello level (its actual conduct by the military)by accepting a contractarian account of the rules governing war. According to this account, the rules of war are anchored in a mutually beneficial and fair agreement between the relevant players - the purpose of which is to promote peace and to reduce the horrors of war. The book relies on the long social contract tradition and illustrates its fruitfulness in understanding and developing the morality and the law of war.

Jus post bellum is the body of international legal norms and rules of international law that applies to a post-conflict situation as it moves to a status of peace. This book provides a detailed legal analysis of all aspects of jus post bellum, and uses case studies to show its relevance to the reality of situations on the ground.

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.

"Necessity and proportionality occupy a firm place in the international law governing the use of force by states. Perhaps most importantly for practical purposes, the exercise of the right of self-defense, as recognized in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, is subject to the requirements of necessity and proportionality, as the International Court of Justice determined in the Nicaragua case. Necessity and proportionality are also firmly anchored in the international law governing armed conflicts. In its Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice even referred to one articulation of the idea of necessity, that directed against the causing of unnecessary suffering, as one of two "cardinal principles" of this body of law. However, beyond statement in such general terms, the realms of uncertainty and controversy soon begin. It is far from clear, for example, how to distinguish with precision between necessity and proportionality in the international law on self-defense and, in immediate connection herewith, what it means precisely to say that forcible action taken in the exercise of self-defense must be proportionate. It is all the less clear what legal significance, if any, necessity and proportionality possess in other contexts of the international law governing the use of force"--

This is the first book-length treatment of justice after war ends. Larry May combines here both philosophical and legal analysis.

Killing a person is in general among the most seriously wrongful forms of action, yet most of us accept that it can be permissible to kill people on a large scale in war. Does morality become more permissive in a state of war? Jeff McMahan argues that conditions in war make no difference to what morality permits and the justifications for killing people are the same in war as they are in other contexts, such as individual self-defence. This view is radically at odds with the traditional theory of the just war and has implications that challenge common sense views. McMahan argues, for example, that it is wrong to fight in a war that is unjust because it lacks a just cause.