How do we frame decisions to use or abstain from military force? Who should do the killing? Do we need new paradigms to guide the use of force? And what does “victory” mean in contemporary conflict? In many ways, these are timeless questions. But they should be revisited in light of changing circumstances in the twenty-first century. The post–Cold War, post-9/11 world is one of contested and fragmented sovereignty: contested because the norm of territorial integrity has shed some of its absolute nature, fragmented because some states do not control all of their territory and cannot defeat violent groups operating within their borders. Humanitarian intervention, preventive war, and just war are all framing mechanisms aimed at convincing domestic and international audiences to go to war—or not, as well as to decide who is justified in legally and ethically killing. The international group of scholars assembled in this book critically examine these frameworks to ask if they are flawed, and if so, how they can be improved. Finally, the volume contemplates what all the killing and dying is for if victory ultimately proves elusive.

Leading political theologian Oliver O'Donovan takes a fresh look at some traditional moral arguments about war. Christians differ widely on this issue. The book re-examines questions of contemporary urgency, including the use of biological and nuclear weapons, military intervention, economic sanctions, and the role of the UN. It opens with a challenging dedication to the new Archbishop of Canterbury and proceeds to shed light on vital topics with which that Archbishop and others will be very directly engaged. It should be read by anyone concerned with the ethics of warfare.

New essays on philosophical, legal, and moral aspects of armed humanitarian intervention, including discussion of the 2011 bombing in Libya.

Focusing on post-World War II American foreign policy and its intellectual architect, George Kennan, this volume explores the moral dimensions of realpolitik and the ethical dilemmas posed by present-day politics. Is Kennan responsible for persuading the U.S. foreign policy establishment that morality should go by the wayside? Or was Kennan right to regard as "presumptuous" the idea that Americans should tell other societies how to behave? Kennan gives his own influential view in an article reprinted here from Foreign Affairs (1985/96). (Workshop 6)

A superb introduction to the ethical aspects of war and peace, this collection of tightly integrated essays explores the reasons for waging war and for fighting with restraint as formulated in a diversity of ethical traditions, religious and secular. Beginning with the classic debate between political realism and natural law, this book seeks to expand the conversation by bringing in the voices of Judaism, Islam, Christian pacifism, and contemporary feminism. In so doing, it addresses a set of questions: How do the adherents to each viewpoint understand the ideas of war and peace? What attitudes toward war and peace are reflected in these understandings? What grounds for war, if any, are recognized within each perspective? What constraints apply to the conduct of war? Can these constraints be set aside in situations of extremity? Each contributor responds to this set of questions on behalf of the ethical perspective he or she is presenting. The concluding chapters compare and contrast the perspectives presented without seeking to adjudicate their differences. Because of its inclusive, objective, comparative, and dialogic approach, the book serves as a valuable resource for scholars, journalists, policymakers, and anyone else who wants to acquire a better understanding of the range of moral viewpoints that shape current discussion of war and peace. In addition to the editor, the contributors are Joseph Boyle, Michael G. Cartwright, Jean Bethke Elshtain, John Finnis, Sohail H. Hashmi, Theodore J. Koontz, David R. Mapel, Jeff McMahan, Richard B. Miller, Aviezer Ravitzky, Bassam Tibi, Sarah Tobias, and Michael Walzer.

'Just and Unjust Uses of Limited Force' revists recent conflicts animating contemporary just war scholarship as instances of limited force, drawing insights from the just war tradition. Looking at these contemporary examples, the book teases out an ethical account of force-short-of-war.

Richard Norman looks at issues concerning the justification for war and thereby examines the possibility and nature of rational moral argument.

A moral philosopher discuses the rights and wrongs of specific military campaigns from 1914 on, including the war in Vietnam, the Six Day War, the British bombing campaign against Germany, the American bombing of Japan, the Korean War, the Indo-Pakastani War of 1971, the 1976 raid on Entebbe, and the 1986 attack against Libya.

An account of war ethics sensitive to the historical just war theory, informed by the contemporary concerns of war.

This volume collects influential and groundbreaking philosophical work on killing in war. A "who's who" of contemporary scholars, this volume serves as a convenient and authoritative collection uniquely suited for university-level teaching and as a reference for ethicists, policymakers, stakeholders, and any student of the morality of war.