Bibliographische Detailangaben
Beteiligte: Lazar, Seth
In: Daedalus, 146, 2017, 1, S. 113-124
veröffentlicht:
MIT Press - Journals
Medientyp: Artikel, E-Artikel

Nicht angemeldet

weitere Informationen
Umfang: 113-124
ISSN: 0011-5266
1548-6192
DOI: 10.1162/daed_a_00426
veröffentlicht in: Daedalus
Sprache: Englisch
Schlagwörter:
Kollektion: MIT Press - Journals (CrossRef)
Inhaltsangabe

<jats:p> Modern analytical just war theory starts with Michael Walzer's defense of key tenets of the laws of war in his Just and Unjust Wars. Walzer advocates noncombatant immunity, proportionality, and combatant equality: combatants in war must target only combatants; unintentional harms that they inflict on noncombatants must be proportionate to the military objective secured; and combatants who abide by these principles fight permissibly, regardless of their aims. In recent years, the revisionist school of just war theory, led by Jeff McMahan, has radically undermined Walzer's defense of these principles. This essay situates Walzer's and the revisionists’ arguments, before illustrating the disturbing vision of the morality of war that results from revisionist premises. It concludes by showing how broadly Walzerian conclusions can be defended using more reliable foundations. </jats:p>