Philosophia private, indeed even individual war. I then show that arguments in support of
legitimate authority, let alone in support of the “priority” of this criterion, fail. I further argue …

A survey of just war theory literature reveals the existence of quite different lists of principles.
This apparent arbitrariness raises a number of questions: What is the relation between ad …

The just war tradition, throughout its history, has mainly concerned itself with the ethics of
declaring war and of the methods used to wage war. There is now a general acceptance of …

In this contribution, I defend the standard list of jus ad bellum principles. In The Ethics of War
and the Force of Law: A Modern Just War Theory, Uwe Steinhoff endorses only three …

This paper defends two positions. First, that the endings and aftermath of war raise important
questions for just war theory, which must be incorporated at both substantive and procedural …

According to most accounts of just war theory, jus ad bellum is concerned with the morality of
initiating war. This gives jus ad bellum a temporal dimension, making it a set of principles …

The just war tradition usually revolves around two crucial points: the justness of a war, and
the justness of the way that war is fought. These two points-jus ad bellum and jus in bello …

Traditionally, just-war ethics tries to offer an answer to two distinct moral questions: when (if
ever) is it morally permissible to start a war, and how should it be fought? For this specific …

What happens following a war is important to the moral judgments we make concerning
warfare, just as the intentions going in and the means used are. There has, however, been …

Much work in the ethics of war is structured around the distinction between jus ad bellum
and jus in bello. This distinction has two key roles. It distinguishes two evaluative objects …