But for the framework to have the desired restraining effect on statesmen and warmakers, it has to marry practicality to idealism, and strike enough of a balance between the two to make it seem applicable to real-world crises. And if it's important not to stretch the theory to justify any goal or end you seek, it's also important not to narrow it to the point where it seems so unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of war that policymakers will feel comfortable ignoring it.
From a fascinating debate happening on the Atlantic blogs (this a post by Ross Douthat) and elsewhere. See also Andrew Sullivan's discussion of the same issue. I'll post my thoughts on this matter more, later, maybe after some riveting discussion following Adunare's paper.
4 comments:
Surely Douthat is correct when he writes, "a shared commitment to just war theory doesn't guarantee anything like a consensus on the justice of a given war or operation".
Theories of war and peace making are inevitably going to be abstract enough to be bent in either direction if policymakers care to do so. I think the question we want answered is "how do I act in this situation" - we don't want to be the ones responsible for the hard moral wrestling, admitting that our moral frameworks, our theological cannons and our great personal skills aren't - inevitably - up to the task of living without fault or consequence. Just War will never relieve of us of that burden.
The question which Just War answers is "what are the standards, or the framework by which I can responsibly consider my actions right or just?".
Theories aren't "how to" manuals for policy problems. Theories - like ships - need thinking human beings at the helm.
I regret I ran out of time and retracted by paper submission last December. I'm holding onto it for submission to next year's conference, however.
Bah! Well, over beer after hours at the conference then?
Sounds delightful.
Post a Comment