Michael Walzer’s "Just and Unjust War" from 1977 is considered a major work in traditional Just War Theory. Many of his assumptions are still the basis for modern warfare considerations. However, the author suggest that Walzer’s concept of jus in bello (the conduct of war) needs further revision, especially to provide an appropriate notion of combatants. In this respect, the theoretical conception of soldiers will be examined on three different levels of analysis. These include the combatants' contradictory responsibilities in jus ad bellum (the justification for war), jus in bello and the debate on the value of a soldier's life.
Firstly, the contradictory role of combatants' responsibilities in jus ad bellum and jus in bello by referring to Graham Parsons' criticism on the dualism of Just War Theory will be outlined. Then, the author elaborates on Walzer's claim that all soldiers are morally equal. The following critical analysis of the value of combatants' lives as individual human beings will further demonstrate the need for a revised perception of combatants in modern warfare and point out why Walzer's assumptions are insufficient.
While the role of civilians and their need for protection has developed over time and even restrictions for cruel methods of killing were introduced, the status of soldiers has basically remained the same. In this work the author arugues that striving toward more just warfare also requires reconsidering the highly inhumane status of soldiers in traditional approaches.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis of Combatant Responsibilities
2.1 Contradictions in Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello
2.2 The Problem of Moral Equality among Soldiers
2.3 Realist Doctrine and the Status of Combatants as Instruments
3. Conclusion
Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to critically evaluate Michael Walzer's theory of Just War, specifically focusing on the inconsistent depiction of combatant responsibilities and moral equality, in order to propose a necessary revision for modern warfare.
- Theoretical evaluation of the dualism between jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
- Critique of the moral equality principle as applied to combatants.
- Analysis of the soldier's role as an "instrument" of political entities.
- Proposal for new legal regulations regarding soldier targetability and the reduction of unnecessary casualties.
Excerpt from the Book
Michael Walzer's Theory of Just War Revised – Why the role of soldiers in just war theory requires amendments
Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust War from 1977 is considered a major work in traditional Just War Theory. Many of his assumptions are still the basis for modern warfare considerations. However, not every aspect of his theory has received overall agreement within the discipline. Accordingly, the role of combatants in jus in bello (the conduct of war) has become a major topic of debate. While the role of civilians and their need for protection has developed over time and even restrictions for cruel methods of killing were introduced, the status of soldiers has basically remained the same. I argue that striving toward more just warfare also requires to reconsider the highly inhumane status of soldiers in traditional approaches.
In this research paper, I therefore suggest that Walzer's concept of jus in bello needs further revision, especially to provide an appropriate notion of combatants (also referred to as soldiers). In this respect, I will examine the theoretical conception of soldiers on three different levels of analysis. These include the combatants' contradictory responsibilities in jus ad bellum (the justification for war) and jus in bello, the idea of moral equality of all soldiers and the debate on the value of a soldier's life. This is of importance since the recognition and alteration of these concepts might change the way we wage war nowadays to the better. To elaborate on that, I will combine moral philosophical analysis with normative theory. I will first outline the contradictory role of combatants' responsibilities in jus ad bellum and jus in bello by referring to Graham Parsons' criticism on the dualism of Just War Theory. Then, I will elaborate on Walzer's claim that all soldiers are morally equal. The following critical analysis of the value of combatants' lives as individual human beings will further demonstrate the need for a revised perception of combatants in modern warfare and point out why Walzer's assumptions are insufficient. In a final conclusion I am going to claim that it is necessary to revise these concepts to change the status of combatants as sole “instruments” in modern warfare and propose to introduce laws that restrain permissible killings on combatants.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the critical examination of Michael Walzer's Just War Theory, highlighting the identified inconsistencies regarding the status of combatants and the objectives of the research.
2. Theoretical Analysis of Combatant Responsibilities: This section provides a multi-level analysis of how Walzer's framework creates conflicting roles for soldiers and questions the established principle of moral equality in modern combat contexts.
3. Conclusion: The final section synthesizes the critique, arguing that amending the foundational assumptions about combatants is essential for reducing misinterpretations and improving the conduct of contemporary warfare.
Keywords
Just War Theory, Michael Walzer, Jus in bello, Jus ad bellum, Combatants, Moral equality, Modern warfare, Soldier responsibility, Civilian protection, War conventions, Military ethics, Threat-based analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the inconsistencies within Michael Walzer's Just War Theory regarding the role and moral status of combatants in both jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
Key themes include the dualism of war justification, the concept of moral equality among soldiers, the classification of soldiers as instruments of the state, and the potential for legal reform to protect combatants.
What is the core research question or objective?
The objective is to demonstrate that Walzer's assumptions regarding combatants are insufficient and to argue for a revised theoretical framework that better addresses the value of human lives in modern warfare.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author employs a combination of critical moral philosophical analysis and normative theoretical evaluation to examine the existing literature and identify logical inconsistencies.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers three levels of analysis: the contradictions between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, the critique of the moral equality of soldiers, and the analysis of the realist perception of soldiers as state instruments.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
The work is characterized by terms such as Just War Theory, Jus in bello, Moral equality, Combatant status, and Military ethics.
Why does the author argue that Walzer's claim of moral equality is insufficient?
The author argues that generalizing the moral equality of all combatants fails to account for diverse roles and legal realities, leading to incoherent applications of the principle of proportionality.
How does the concept of "threat-based analysis" contribute to the author's argument?
The author suggests that implementing a threat-based analysis—as discussed by scholars like Blum—could provide a more ethical framework to reduce unnecessary soldier casualties compared to traditional approaches.
- Citar trabajo
- Elena Mertel (Autor), 2018, Michael Walzer's Just War Theory, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/498136
