‘Virtuous war’ and the emergence ofjus post bellum

Abstract

Scholars from various subfields have recognised a dangerous novelty for ethical thought on war in the combination of a detached, or virtual, technical ability to wage war and the ethical imperatives of human rights norms -deemed 'virtuous war'. This article begins by discussing the contention that the just war tradition acts as the enabling discourse for virtuous war, and the further contention that the wars being enabled are paradoxically unjust. After assessing the validity of the virtuous war claim it is argued that the just war tradition's core ethical commitment not only remains the most sound starting point for thinking about the morality of war, but is a commitment that those in the virtuous war literature suggesting alternate ethical doctrines on war implicitly reject. It is contended, though, that the addition of a third pillar to the just war structure of cause and means criteria -a justice after war or jus post bellum -has arisen due to the virtuous war reality, and is necessary in order for the just war tradition to remain committed to its core ethical principle in a 21st century marked by virtuous war. Lastly, I present a brief sketch of jus post bellum informed by the article's key claims.Benjamin R. Banta is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the University of Delaware. His dissertation is on the liberal or 'globalising' wars of the post-Cold War era, specifically their effects on the social structures that constitute international relations.'When philosophers write about public affairs, I believe that they must attend to the political and moral realities of the world whose affairs these are.' 1 This article seeks to secure the foundations of the burgeoning jus post bellum literature 2 by taking into account the implications of a literature that is, though opaquely, intimately connected to some of the recent criticisms of the use of just war reasoning.

‘Barbarising’ China in American trade war discourse: the assault on Huawei

“…Such civilizational rhetoric discursively legitimizes violence and the use of military force both for 'pre-emptive strike' in defending Western citizens and their values against barbarism, and for a new kind of 'civilizing mission' of imposing liberal values on other cultures for the benefit of what is good for them. It necessitates 'assertive liberalism' in engaging in the morally 'virtuous' war (Sutch 2011, Banta 2011.…”

Analysing discourse as a causal mechanism

“…Theorizations also feature concern with the moral discourses that both enable and constrain war. War transformation issues even bleed over significantly into international ethics (see Banta, 2011;Burke, 2004Burke, , 2005Orend, 2006). Prominent in numerous theorizations, along with a continued emphasis on the influence of globalization and technology, is a striking concern with the role of humanitarianism in shaping warfare (for landmark studies, see Coker, 2001;Ignatieff, 2000).…”

The Catholic Just War Tradition and Russia's War Against Ukraine

“…Aquinas also included "military prudence" in his discussion of the cardinal virtues: "The execution of military service belongs to fortitude, but the direction, especially in so far as it concerns the commander-in-chief, belongs to prudence" [17,4]. Furthermore, he argued that prudence, justice, fortitude, and the other virtues are connected [17,1]. Ukrainian officers and soldiers have performed acts of heroic virtue in defense of their native land.…”