After the dust settles: Reflections on postwar justice

1Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

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 purpose, just-war reasoning is divided into two parts. The jus ad bellum guides our moral thinking in initiating war; the jus in bello informs us on proper moral conduct during the hostilities. More recently, however, a number of authors have felt the need to add a third element to the just-war theory, that of the jus post bellum. A war, so it is argued, has a beginning, middle and end. There is no reason then why the termination and the longer term aftermath of the war should deserve less attention from a moral point of view. A lot more needs to be said and done before the jus post bellum will reach a comparable degree of substance and sophistication to the two other just-war parts. However, this is exactly what two recently published books on the subject - Eric Patterson's Ethics beyond War's End and Larry May's After War Ends: A Philosophical Perspective - aim to do. © The Author(s) 2014.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ceulemans, C. (2014). After the dust settles: Reflections on postwar justice. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814528740

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free