What do you think?
Rate this book
New Interventionist Just War Theory: A Critique
This book offers a systematic critique of recent interventionist just war theories, which have made the recourse to force easier to justify.
The work argues that these theories, including neo-traditionalist prerogatives to national leaders and a cosmopolitan human rights paradigm, offer criteria for war that are insufficient in principle and dangerous in practice. Drawing on a plurality of moral considerations, the book recommends a modified legalist national defense paradigm, which includes an atrocity threshold for humanitarian intervention and a legitimate authorization requirement. The plausibility of this restrictive framework is applied to case studies, including the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ongoing targeted killing, and possible interventions in Syria and elsewhere. Various arguments which seek to loosen the criteria for war are also systematically analyzed and criticized.
This book will be of much interest to students of just war theory, military history, ethics, political philosophy, and international relations.
The work argues that these theories, including neo-traditionalist prerogatives to national leaders and a cosmopolitan human rights paradigm, offer criteria for war that are insufficient in principle and dangerous in practice. Drawing on a plurality of moral considerations, the book recommends a modified legalist national defense paradigm, which includes an atrocity threshold for humanitarian intervention and a legitimate authorization requirement. The plausibility of this restrictive framework is applied to case studies, including the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ongoing targeted killing, and possible interventions in Syria and elsewhere. Various arguments which seek to loosen the criteria for war are also systematically analyzed and criticized.
This book will be of much interest to students of just war theory, military history, ethics, political philosophy, and international relations.
474 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 22, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 12, 2025
A Clear and Insightful Contribution to Contemporary Just War Theory
New Interventionist Just War Theory: A Critique is a thoroughly engaging and thought-provoking read. Rocheleau does an excellent job of situating his argument within the broader tradition of just war theory, offering a clear and accessible critique of interventionist approaches while maintaining a respectful dialogue with other scholars in the field.
One of the aspects I appreciated most was the clarity of the writing. Complex moral and political concepts are laid out in a way that’s easy to follow without ever feeling oversimplified. Rocheleau strikes a good balance between theoretical depth and readability.
His treatment of legitimate authority as a necessary and substantive criterion of jus ad bellum stood out to me. In a time when many theorists have begun to sideline the importance of authorization, Rocheleau convincingly argues that forgetting why authority is needed can be dangerous. As he writes, “Properly understood, legitimate authorization is a necessary and substantive criterion for jus ad bellum”. This is a crucial reminder that procedural legitimacy is not just a technicality—it plays a fundamental moral role in decisions about war.
Another strength of the book is Rocheleau’s dynamic view of jus ad bellum. I found his argument that jus ad bellum should not be treated as a one-time hurdle before war begins, but rather as a continuous moral test throughout the course of a conflict, especially persuasive. It’s a powerful idea that challenges static models and opens the door for more responsible, morally aware decision-making during war.
Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in ethics, political philosophy, or international relations. It offers both a strong critique of modern interventionist trends and a thoughtful reassertion of core just war principles—one that is timely, reasoned, and compelling.
New Interventionist Just War Theory: A Critique is a thoroughly engaging and thought-provoking read. Rocheleau does an excellent job of situating his argument within the broader tradition of just war theory, offering a clear and accessible critique of interventionist approaches while maintaining a respectful dialogue with other scholars in the field.
One of the aspects I appreciated most was the clarity of the writing. Complex moral and political concepts are laid out in a way that’s easy to follow without ever feeling oversimplified. Rocheleau strikes a good balance between theoretical depth and readability.
His treatment of legitimate authority as a necessary and substantive criterion of jus ad bellum stood out to me. In a time when many theorists have begun to sideline the importance of authorization, Rocheleau convincingly argues that forgetting why authority is needed can be dangerous. As he writes, “Properly understood, legitimate authorization is a necessary and substantive criterion for jus ad bellum”. This is a crucial reminder that procedural legitimacy is not just a technicality—it plays a fundamental moral role in decisions about war.
Another strength of the book is Rocheleau’s dynamic view of jus ad bellum. I found his argument that jus ad bellum should not be treated as a one-time hurdle before war begins, but rather as a continuous moral test throughout the course of a conflict, especially persuasive. It’s a powerful idea that challenges static models and opens the door for more responsible, morally aware decision-making during war.
Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in ethics, political philosophy, or international relations. It offers both a strong critique of modern interventionist trends and a thoughtful reassertion of core just war principles—one that is timely, reasoned, and compelling.
Displaying 1 of 1 review