Contemporary Transformations of Just War Theory

Abstract

The paper analyses two central changes occurring in the contemporary Just War Theory: a partial justification of preventive war and an elaboration of principles regulating warfare that involves non-state actors. A substantial contribution to the solution of these problems was made by American ethicists and political philosophers David Luban and Nicholas Fotion. The main goal of this article is to reconstruct the historical, ethical and theoretical context of their researches. The problem of the justification of preventive war has a long history. Medieval theologians (and their successors – neoscholastics) regarded preventive war as obviously unjust. On the contrary, many modern thinkers consider it to be justified because it helps to maintain the world balance of power. By the mid-twentieth century consensus on the impermissibility of preventive war had developed again in political ethics. However, recently some military-technological and political changes have led to its disappearance and the renewal of debates. Luban’s conception of “restricted doctrine of preventive war” is a striking example of this process. A similar situation occurs with moral principles regulating conflicts involving non-state actors. The thesis about the impossibility to justify military activity of non-state actors was generally recognized in the just war theory reflecting the realities of the Westphalian international order. The moral grounding of this idea was provided by Samuel von Pufendorf and Emer de Vattel. This approach seems to be over-restrictive as it blocks any effective means to counteract repressive political regimes. At the same time, the application of principles regulating sate-versus-state warfare to the civil armed conflicts leads to a number of paradoxical results. The way out proposed by Fotion is this: the “irregular” just war theory, specially designed for state-versus-non-state wars, should rule out the symmetric application of these principles to different sides of such conflicts. Thus, the new normative system allows the warring parties of different types to pursue their goals and at the same time minimizes the use of armed force and its consequences.