The Ethics of Armed Conflict: A Cosmopolitan Just War Theory

by John W. Lango

Just war theory exists to stop armies and countries from using armed force without good cause. But how do we decide whether a use of armed force is just or unjust? In this original book, John W. Lango takes some distinctive approaches to the ethics of armed conflict. 1. A revisionist approach that involves generalising traditional just war principles, so that responsible agents can apply them to all forms of armed conflict. 2. A cosmopolitan approach that features the Security Council. 3. A preventive approach that emphasises alternatives to armed force, including negotiation, nonviolent action and peacekeeping missions. 4. A human rights approach that encompasses not only armed humanitarian intervention but also armed invasion, armed revolution and all other forms of armed conflict. Using these principles, he discusses issues surrounding just cause, last resort, proportionality and noncombatant immunity. He then applies them to hot topics in international conflicts including drone strikes, no-fly zones, moral dilemmas, deterrence, intelligence, legitimate authority, escalation and peace agreements, drawing on real-world case studies from recent conflicts in countries including Afghanistan, Darfur, Libya and South Sudan.

256 pages, Hardcover

First published November 30, 2013

Reviews

[Sofia Gonçalves · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciate how this work thoughtfully engages with classical just war theory, respecting its foundational principles while adapting and expanding them to meet the complex realities of our cosmopolitan world. In an era marked by nuclear weapons, global interdependence, and institutions like the United Nations Security Council, this book offers a timely and nuanced framework for ethical reflection on armed conflict.

What stood out to me most was the concept of the ladder of resorts, which compellingly captures the moral imperative to seek the least harmful and most justifiable means before escalating to more severe forms of military action. This idea, along with the rigorous emphasis on the burden of proof and the moral presumption against grievous harm to noncombatants, provides a robust ethical foundation that balances just cause with just conduct.

Overall, the book successfully modernizes just war theory by integrating cosmopolitan values and contemporary geopolitical realities, making it a valuable resource for anyone interested in the ethics of war today.

However, the emphasis on institutions like the UN Security Council could be criticized because the UNSC is often politicized, biased, or ineffective, especially when great powers veto interventions. So relying on it as a moral arbiter might be questioned.