Protecting the Natural Environment in Wartime: Ethical Considerations from the Just War Tradition

Reichberg, Gregory M.; Syse, Henrik

doi:10.1177/0022343300037004003

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23 Focusing on environmental protection, such as immunity for nature in wartime, however, risks losing sight of humanitarian concerns for the lives of soldiers and civilians. 24 Drawing on Drucker's analysis, Gregory Reichberg and Henrik Syse (2000) are the first contemporary just war theorists to explicitly suggest incorporating environmental considerations into the moral assessment of war and its conduct. Focusing specifically on Thomas Aquinas' formulation of the just war requirements and natural law, alongside Aquinas' view of human-nature relationship in terms of responsibility and stewardship, authors suggest that the just war tradition "provides an ethical vocabulary for assessing the impact of war on our natural environment," from within this influential Thomist framework.…”

Section: Environmental Military Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Ethics of War: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and the Natural Environment

Meisels

2023

Conatus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conduct of hostilities is very bad for the environment, yet relatively little attention has been focused on environmental military ethics by just war theorists and revisionist philosophers of war. Contemporary ecological concerns pose significant challenges to jus in bello. I begin by briefly surveying existing literature on environmental justice during wartime. While these jus in bello environmental issues have been addressed only sparsely by just war theorists, environmental jus ad bellum has rarely been tackled within JWT or the morality of war. In line with the theme of this special issue, I focus my discussion of war and the natural environment primarily on the jus ad bellum level. I set out with the presumption against the use of force, and its possible exceptions. The principal question raised is whether environmental harm can trigger a new justification for war. Beyond just cause, I consider what might be a proportionate response to “environmental aggression,” or negligent harm to nature. The use of force is clearly justified in response to military attacks, against the natural environment or otherwise. Where harm to nature or its inhabitants are not caused by military aggression, just war theory criteria point in favor of responding via measures short of war. Finally, I suggest that responding by means that are not themselves harmful to nature serves to fulfill the further jus ad bellum criterion of “right intention.”

show abstract

Section: Environmental Military Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Ethics of War: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and the Natural Environment

Meisels

2023

Conatus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the rich legal and moral history of taking unwelcome attacks on the environment as casus belli, we contend that the just war framework offers one way to answer those questions. The framework provides a structure in which to justify actions that are of such moral magnitude that they would, under ordinary circumstances, be clearly unjust, and it also directs strict moral scrutiny toward such actions and instantiates appropriate limitations on morally appropriate instruments of self‐defense (Reichberg and Syse , 453).…”

Section: Initial Objections To Analyzing Srm Via the Just War Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change is Unjust War: Geoengineering and the Rising Tides of War

Fruh¹,

Hedahl²

2019

The Southern J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is undeniably a global problem, but the situation is especially dire for countries whose territory is comprised entirely or primarily of low-lying land. While geoengineering might offer an opportunity to protect these states, international consensus on the particulars of any geoengineering proposal seems unlikely. To consider the moral complexities created by unilateral deployment of geoengineering technologies, we turn to a moral convention with a rich history of assessing interference in the sovereign affairs of foreign states: the just war tradition. We argue that the just war framework demonstrates that, for these nations, geoengineering offers a justified form of self-defense from an unwarranted, albeit unintentional, aggression. This startling result places our own carbon-emitting activities in a stark new light: in perpetrating climate change, we are, in fact, waging war on the most vulnerable."We live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us." -Saufatu Sopoanga, former Prime Minister of Tuvalu (Long and Wormworth 2012, 402) Kyle Fruh is an assistant professor of philosophy and humanities at Duke Kunshan University. His published interests include climate change ethics, the normative dimensions of commitments such as promises, and moral heroism.Marcus Hedahl is an associate professor of philosophy at the U.S. Naval Academy. His primary area of research involves second-personal normative relations within collective structures.

show abstract

“…Drucker attempts to reconcile the concept of military necessity with environmental ethics by arguing that the belief that military necessity always and everywhere justifies any environmental destruction is as untenable as the belief that any minor destruction of the environment is never justified, even at the cost of sacrificing the lives of countless soldiers. Reichberg and Syse (2000) build off this analysis and argue that environmental impacts also ought to impact particular assessments of jus ad bellum. Mark Woods (2007) brings these insights together, considering how the environment ought to influence ethical decision-making before, during, and after war.…”

Section: Environmental Considerations In the Just War Traditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To see how, one need only consider the fact that proportionality requires belligerents, as much as possible, "to restrict the amount of [long-term] damage … extending beyond the period of hostilities" (Green, 2008, p. 123). Unfortunately, quantifying more precisely the impact of environmental considerations on wide proportionality calculations is difficult if not impossible, given the lack of any straightforward commensurate scale whereby to consider potential harms to the environment, potential harms to individuals, and the possible gains of war (Reichberg & Syse, 2000). Regardless of any precise quantification, however, it is relatively easy to recognize that once one considers the devastating impact war can have on the environment, it becomes increasing difficult to find offsetting benefits that could satisfy proportionality of ends.…”

Section: Proportionality Of Endsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Changing Nature of the Just War Tradition: How Our Changing Environment Ought to Change the Foundations of Just War Theory

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protecting the Natural Environment in Wartime: Ethical Considerations from the Just War Tradition

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Environmental Ethics of War: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and the Natural Environment

Environmental Ethics of War: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and the Natural Environment

Climate Change is Unjust War: Geoengineering and the Rising Tides of War

The Changing Nature of the Just War Tradition: How Our Changing Environment Ought to Change the Foundations of Just War Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About