The Principle of Just Cause

May, Larry; Crookston, Emily

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840982.004

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

The Right To Make War and The Just Cause ( Jus Ad Bellum )1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2013

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Other1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent4

Authors

Journals

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, states are justified in declaring war against any military threat another state or group poses against their rights (Bellamy, 2006;May, 2008;McMahan, 2005;Orend, 2013;Walzer, 2007Walzer, , 2015. Moreover, according to the conception of positive international law, acts of threat or aggression against a state's rights are considered crimes.…”

Section: The Right To Make War and The Just Cause ( Jus Ad Bellum )mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Permissibility of Killing in War: An Experimental Approach to the Moral Judgment of Side-Effect and Defensive Killing

H¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Right To Make War and The Just Cause ( Jus Ad Bellum )mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Permissibility of Killing in War: An Experimental Approach to the Moral Judgment of Side-Effect and Defensive Killing

H¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Just assassinations

Aloyo

2013

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue that widely accepted just war theory precepts morally allow and require the assassination of politically powerful individuals under some circumstances instead of waging a just war or implementing any other policy such as non-targeted economic sanctions that would very likely severely harm more innocents. While all just war theory precepts permit just assassinations under certain circumstances, proportionality, necessity, and last resort make just assassinations required whenever they would cause severe harm to the fewest innocents. There are several implications of my argument. First, there are fewer circumstances when wars and other policies that foreseeably but unintentionally harm innocents are just than is commonly thought. Second, the realm of morally permissible violent and non-violent action for powerful individuals is more limited than many presume and politicians are more often morally liable to actions that would mitigate or end objectively unjust serious threats for which they are culpable, although this does not always include lethal force.

show abstract

Success and the aftermath of surrender

Kuo

2014

Journal of Global Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Principle of Just Cause

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

The Moral Permissibility of Killing in War: An Experimental Approach to the Moral Judgment of Side-Effect and Defensive Killing

The Moral Permissibility of Killing in War: An Experimental Approach to the Moral Judgment of Side-Effect and Defensive Killing

Just assassinations

Success and the aftermath of surrender

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About