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.

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.

This book examines the moral choices faced by U.S. political and military leaders in deciding when and how to employ force, from the American Revolution to the present day. Specifically, the book looks at discrete ethical dilemmas in various American conflicts from a just war perspective. For example, was the casus belli of the American Revolution just, and more specifically, was the Continental Congress a "legitimate" political authority? Was it just for Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Japan? How much of a role did the egos of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon play in prolonging the Vietnam War? Often there are trade-offs that civilian and military leaders must take into account, such as General Scott's 1847 decision to bombard the city of Veracruz in order to quickly move his troops off the malarial Mexican coast. The book also considers the moral significance and policy practicalities of different motives and courses of action. The case studies provided highlight the nuances and even limits of just war principles, such as just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, last resort, likelihood of success, discrimination, and proportionality, and principles for ending war such as order, justice, and conciliation. This book will be of interest for students of just war theory, ethics, philosophy, American history and military history more generally.

The just war tradition is central to the practice of international relations, in questions of war, peace, and the conduct of war in the contemporary world, but surprisingly few scholars have questioned the authority of the tradition as a source of moral guidance for modern statecraft. Just War: Authority, Tradition, and Practice brings together many of the most important contemporary writers on just war to consider questions of authority surrounding the just war tradition. Authority is critical in two key senses. First, it is central to framing the ethical debate about the justice or injustice of war, raising questions about the universality of just war and the tradition’s relationship to religion, law, and democracy. Second, who has the legitimate authority to make just-war claims and declare and prosecute war? Such authority has traditionally been located in the sovereign state, but non-state and supra-state claims to legitimate authority have become increasingly important over the last twenty years as the just war tradition has been used to think about multilateral military operations, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and sub-state violence. The chapters in this collection, organized around these two dimensions, offer a compelling reassessment of the authority issue’s centrality in how we can, do, and ought to think about war in contemporary global politics.

Throughout human history, scholars, statesmen and military leaders have attempted to define what constitutes the legitimate use of armed force by one community against another. Moreover, if force is to be used, what normative guidelines should govern the conduct of warfare? Based upon the assumption that armed conflict is a human enterprise and therefore subject to human limitations, the Western 'just war tradition' represents an attempt to provide these guidelines. Following on from the success of Hensel's earlier publication, The Law of Armed Conflict, this volume brings together an internationally recognized team of scholars to explore the philosophical and societal foundations of just war tradition. It relates the principles of jus ad bellum to contemporary issues confronting the global community and explores the relationship between the principles of jus in bello and the various principles embodied in the customary law of armed conflict. Applying an interdisciplinary approach to analyzing and assessing the links between just war and the norms of behaviour, the book provides a valuable contribution to international law, international relations and national security studies.

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."