Revisionist just war theory

Revisionist just war theory is a development of just war theory that, unlike traditional just war theory, seeks to integrate jus ad bellum and jus in bello, therefore rejecting many traditional beliefs such as moral equality of combatants.[1][2] Opposing traditionalists such as Michael Walzer,[3] revisionists include Jeff McMahan, Cécile Fabre, Bradley J. Strawser, and David Rodin.[4]

References
  1. Kirkpatrick, Jesse (2022). "Moral Injury and Revisionist Just War Theory". Ethics & International Affairs. 36 (1): 27–35. doi:10.1017/S0892679422000041.
  2. Chehtman, Alejandro (2018). "Revisionist Just War Theory and the Concept of War Crimes". Leiden Journal of International Law. 31 (1): 171–194. doi:10.1017/S0922156517000498.
  3. Lazar, Seth (2017). "Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists". Annual Review of Political Science. 20 (1): 37–54. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-112706.
  4. Meireis, Torsten (2017). "Die Revisionist Just War Theory: Jeff McMahan". Handbuch Friedensethik (in German). Springer Fachmedien. pp. 327–339. ISBN 978-3-658-14686-3.

Further reading
  • Strawser, Bradley Jay (2023). The Bounds of Defense: Killing, Moral Responsibility, and War. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-069251-3.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.