Neo-Orthodoxy in the Morality of War

In recent decades, revisionist philosophers have radically challenged the orthodox just war theory championed by Michael Walzer in the 1970s. This review considers two new contributions to the debate, Benbaji and Statman’s War by Agreement and Ripstein’s Kant and the Law of War , which aim to defend...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJus Cogens Vol. 4; no. 3; pp. 317 - 328
Main Author Erez, Lior
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Cham Springer International Publishing 01.10.2022
Subjects
International Organizations
Law
Law and Criminolgy
Legal History
Philosophy of Law
Political Theory
Review Article
Sources and Subjects of International Law
Theories of Law
Laws of war
National defense
Moral equality of combatants
Just war theory
Kant, Immanuel
Contractarianism
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In recent decades, revisionist philosophers have radically challenged the orthodox just war theory championed by Michael Walzer in the 1970s. This review considers two new contributions to the debate, Benbaji and Statman’s War by Agreement and Ripstein’s Kant and the Law of War , which aim to defend the traditional war convention against the revisionist attack. The review investigates the two books’ respective contractarian and Kantian foundations for the war convention, their contrast with the revisionist challenge, and their points of disagreement. Building on the responses to Ripstein in the edited collection, The Public Uses of Coercion and Force , and providing an overview of the broader debate, the review offers an analysis of the two books’ positions on the relationship between the morality and laws of war, on just cause and the crime of aggression, and on the equality between just and unjust combatants.
ISSN:2524-3977
2524-3985
DOI:10.1007/s42439-022-00058-5