Power and Order: The Shared Logics of Realism and Just War Theory

Morkevičius, Valerie

doi:10.1111/isqu.12152

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the argument that I have advanced is an empirical one about the cognitive and emotional biases that people in fact have, not a normative one about how people should behave. A skeptic might argue that my argument about shared moral emotions and beliefs is really just a disguised interpretation of an existing (Western) moral tradition—one rooted in the more secular version of natural law just war theory (Morkevicius :20) . However, the goal of this article has been to set forth an empirical claim about how the moral mind works and the implications that this has for the evolution of the norms of war.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Cognition and the Law and Ethics of Armed Conflict

Traven

2015

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contemporary political science, many believe that normative restrictions on armed conflict are an outgrowth of Western culture and the just war tradition. Drawing on historical evidence, which shows that political actors in Ancient China and the early Islamic empire endorsed civilian protection rules, I claim that such norms are more common than most International Relations (IR) theorists suppose. For IR theory, this raises an important puzzle: How can we explain why similar normative ideas emerged in human societies that are otherwise very different? Building on research in cognitive science, social psychology, and social neuroscience, I argue that most people have natural cognitive and emotional predispositions that bias the emergence and transmission of cultural norms that protect non‐combatants. More specifically, capacities for perspective‐taking and empathy shape how people interpret the limits of their moral commitments, and when these capacities are engaged, intuitional heuristics affect how they judge the morality of killing in war. What is more, I claim that three key contextual variables moderate the connection between innate moral intuitions and the development of civilian protection norms: (i) societal interdependence, (ii) the social empowerment of marginal actors, and (iii) the creation of norms in argumentative contexts that require impartial moral reasoning. I argue that rationalist and constructivist theories of norm emergence will be able to better explain the emergence, the durability, and the institutional design of the norms of war by incorporating this naturalistic theory of moral cognition.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Cognition and the Law and Ethics of Armed Conflict

Traven

2015

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relationship between the two sides is actually far more complex than it may seem at first, and the simple dichotomy of necessary and moral judgments does not work so well. The previous research that explicitly mentions the strange link between realism, just war theory, and necessity remains scarce (Morkevičius, 2015: 17–18; 2018: 28–29).…”

Section: Necessity In the Realist Traditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The popular belief that realism and just war theory are conflicting doctrines has recently been criticized on a number of grounds (Morkevičius, 2015(Morkevičius, , 2018. According to this belief, the former describes International Relations as being based on power politics and does not set moral limits on a state's use of force, whereas the latter theory requires each state to act in accordance with certain moral principles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amoral realism or just war morality? Disentangling different conceptions of necessity

Matsumoto

2020

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses a misconception in the popular contrast between amoral realism and just war theory and clarifies the linguistic source of the misconception by disentangling the two interpretations of necessity. First, we can, and should, distinguish the Thucydidean “causal” conception of necessity, which is the basis for just war thinkers when they attack realist thought, from the Machiavellian “telic” conception. The paper, then, proceeds to reconsider the relationship between realism and morality through a textual analysis of representative contemporary realist theories and clarifies that their necessity judgments contain both causal and telic meanings. According to those supporting the moral view, the pursuit of national interest and security can be interpreted as emerging from their sense of moral duty. Realists are, even if partially, in line with just war theorists in evaluating the moral appropriateness of a war in itself and its methods. Finally, the paper explores the substantive disagreement between the two camps regarding the principle of discrimination, to demonstrate why they should still be assumed to have separate theories. In conclusion, their difference lies in not whether they place importance on the necessity judgment, among other considerations on the morality of war, but the extent to which they do so.

show abstract

“…A realistic theory of "just war," as "applied ethics for foreign policy and military actors," proves that "warfare within the limits of moral permissibility is useful for the national interests of states." (Morkevičius, 2015) There is significant compatibility between the realistic theory of international relations and the theory of just war; moral conditions/rules should be integrated into the decision-making processes of war and their governing. It is important to note that with change like war, the third area of the just war theory appears, which is being established.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing the Wars; Theory, Legislation, Human Rights, Human Security, and Ethics

HADŽİĆ

2023

Ekinoks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study indicates wartime programmed violence's implications within the liberal interpretation of contemporary legislative and human rights debates. It discusses related war theories and practices, problematizing instrumentalization of instilling new global ethics, arguing that humanitarian interventions often became "usable" in the new millennium's geopolitics; wars fatally affect the innocent. It points out that the origins of democracy are structurally violent and that the threat of terrorism, in addition to revealing new forms of "democratic violence," is having a transformative effect on the very character of democracy. How the concept of just cause agrees with armed humanitarian intervention, and whether we have the right to impose democracy by force? Whether the theory of just war in its positivist-legalist paradigm that combines universalist principles with utilitarian harm-weighing versus profit can offer a comprehensive method of morally contemplating current wars. The distinction between liberal cosmopolitan arguments and social democratic ones is apparent. The arbitrariness and the imposition of individual states' views create issues, leading to fragility (human security, socioeconomics, economic development, health). The compulsory international focus and responsibility should incorporate critical medical (children) - "the right to health" and humanitarian goods. Implementing rules to control war's destructiveness is less effective in intercultural conflicts. The doctrine of "just war" application is questionable, and no new victim should suffer even when the goal of the intervention is entirely legitimate and "humane." It cannot be just that it will exempt intervention forces from applying international humanitarian law, nor does the legitimacy of the intervention exempt them from respect for international humanitarian law. The international law concept has evolved from an instrument of promoting peace to an agent of the violent argument of force realization. Ethics is often imposed as politics; human rights ethics transformed into war ethics, leading to human rights violations and civilian casualties. War justice and the moral paradigm within globalization's contemporary forms are questioned. A broader discussion of the assumptions of the universality of Western values that have driven international law for centuries is required.

show abstract

Power and Order: The Shared Logics of Realism and Just War Theory

Cited by 12 publications

References 10 publications

Moral Cognition and the Law and Ethics of Armed Conflict

Moral Cognition and the Law and Ethics of Armed Conflict

Amoral realism or just war morality? Disentangling different conceptions of necessity

Governing the Wars; Theory, Legislation, Human Rights, Human Security, and Ethics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About