Back to Subject:
The Theory of Just War in Contemporary Political Thought


Bugrov K.D.,

Leading Researcher, Institute of History and Archaeology of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Science; Professor, Ural Federal University, k.d.bugrov@gmail.com

elibrary_id: 536916 |

Loginov A.V.,

Associate Professor at the Department of Philosophy, Ural Federal University, alexeyloginov@urfu.ru

elibrary_id: 150843 |


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.05.09
For citation:

Bugrov K.D., Loginov A.V. Back to Subject: The Theory of Just War in Contemporary Political Thought. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 5. P. 114-129. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.05.09


This research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (RSF), project no. 18-18-00216


Abstract

The article compares several intellectual paradigms that inform the problem of just war. The beginning of article shows that the present-day legalist theory of permissible war (like Conventions and Charters of the UN), to our mind, inherits an antinomy which emerged in the history of political thought, and which counterposes state sovereignty and human rights. Within such normative framework, the justification of war gravitates either to protection of state sovereignty or to the defense of human rights; for example, the priority of human rights over sovereignty is being proclaimed by authors such as Habermas who reduce war to a mere ‘police operation’. We reconstruct the philosophical foundations of this theory (Vattel, Kant) to suggest that such a normative theory incurs the loss of state legitimacy as a criterion jus ad bellum, interpreting legitimacy on contractual terms. Further, we examine ideas of political realism (Morgenthau) and the critics of ‘Kantian-Wilsonian system’, which, as certain authors consider (Schmitt), leads towards the demonization of an enemy, towards the endless escalation of violence, and towards the transformation of regular war into partisan war. The third part of the article deals with the legitimation of war in Bolshevik political philosophy and studies the specifics of arguments of Lenin, which, along with the works of Pashukanis, represent the nucleus of the unique concept of just war, which goes beyond the antinomy ‘sovereignty – rights’. In the final chapter, the authors show that Walzer’s theory of just war, which is popular nowadays, shares certain characteristics with Leninist theory of war; for both these theories, firstly, both place importance in rhetoric strategies for problematizing the status of subjects waging war; secondly, both are sensitive to status-based justifications of war in particular cases; and thirdly, both place emphasis upon the necessity of effective persuasion of ‘ordinary people’ (or ‘masses’, in Lenin’s words) in the just character of war. The authors conclude that it is attention to the subject waging war and the subject consuming the information (an “ordinary person”) that makes a difference between these theories from the ‘Kantian-Wilsonain system’, from the strict legalist paradigm, and, finally, from the political realism of Morgenthau and Schmitt which operates through the concept of depersonalized state interest. 

Keywords
war, legitimacy, sovereignty, human rights, ideology, J. Habermas, M. Waltzer, K. Schmitt, V. Lenin.


References

Calhoun L. 2013. War and Delusion: a Critical Examination. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 263 p.

Clarke J. 1996. Soviet Appeasement, Collective Security, and the Italo-Ethiopian War of 1935 and 1936. – The Selected Annual Proceedings of the Florida Conference of Historians. Vol. 4. P. 115-132.

Cristol J. 2009. Morgenthau vs. Morgenthau? ‘‘The Six Principles of Political Realism’’ in Context. – American Foreign Policy Interests. No. 31. No. 4. P. 238-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803920903136247

Dreveskracht R. 2010. Just War and International Law: An Argument for a Deontological Approach to Humanitarian Law. – Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. Vol. 16. P. 237-288.

Glanville L. 2011. Ellery Stowell and the Enduring Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention. – International Relations Review. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 241-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01023.x

Holland B. 2011. The Moral Person of the State: Emer de Vattel and the Foundations of International Legal Order. – History of European Ideas. Vol. 37No. 4. P. 438-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.histeuroideas.2011.03.001

Just War Thinkers: from Cicero to the 21st Century. 2018. Ed. by D. Brunstetter, C. O’Driscoll. New York: Routledge. 282 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650470

Inglehart R. 2017. There is a Crucial Social Need for Competent Social Scientists. – Changing Societies and Personalities. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 12-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/csp.2017.1.1.002

Kumankov A. 2015. Humanism as Casus Belli: Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Just War Theory. – Russian Sociological Review. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 77-91. https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2015-4-77-91

Luban D. 1980а. Just War and Human Rights. – Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 160-181.

Luban D. 1980b. The Romance of the Nation-State. – Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 392-397.

Morgenthau H. 2005. Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace. Beijing: Peking University Press. 658 p.

Nakhimovsky I. 2007. Vattel’s Theory of the International Order: Commerce and the Balance of Power in the Law of Nations. – History of European Ideas. Vol. 33. No. 2. P. 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.histeuroideas.2006.11.006

Prinz J., Rossi E. 2017. Political Realism as Ideology Critique. – Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 334-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2017.1293908

Ray A. 2003. International Relations: A Critique of Realist Theory. – India International Centre Quarterly. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 110-128.

Stowell E. 1921. Intervention in International Law. Washington: John Byrne & Co. 558 p.

Walzer M. 2006. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books. 361 p.

Walzer M. 2002. The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success). – Social Research. Vol. 69. No. 4. P. 925-944. 

 

Apresyan R.G. 2002. Metanormative Contents of the Principles of Just War. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 3. P. 57-71. (In Russ.) URL: https://www.politstudies.ru/files/File/2002/3/Polis-2002-3-Apresyan.pdf (accessed 02.07.2020).

Berdiaiev N.A. 1926. Koshmar zlogo dobra [Nightmare of Evil Goodness]. – Put’. Organ russkoi religioznoi mysli [Way. The Organ of Russian Religious Thought]. No. 4. P. 103-116. (In Russ.)

Biunion F. 2002. Just War, Aggressive War and International Humanitarian Law. – International Red Cross Journal. No. 847. P. 205-233. (In Russ.) URL: https://www.icrc.org/ru/doc/assets/files/other/08_irrc_847_bugnion_rus.pdf (accessed 07.07.2020).

Habermas J. 2008. Der gespaltene Westen. Kleine politische Schriften. (Russ. ed.: Habermas J. Raskolotyi Zapad. Мoscow: Ves Mir Publ. 192 p.)

Ivanov A.V. 2016. Moral Dilemmas and Conceptual Contradictions of the Theory of “Just War. – Historical, Philosophical, Political and Law Sciences, Cultural Studies and Art. Questions of Theory and Practice No. 7. P. 55-58.

Kashnikov B.N. 2014. Theory of Just War as War and Justice in a Global World. – War and Law Journal. No. 3. P. 24-32.

Lenin V.I. 1969. Sotsializm I voina (Otnoshenie RSDRP k voine) [Socialism and War (The Attitude of RSDLP Towards the War)]. – Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works]. Vol. 26. Мoscow: Political Literature Press. P. 307-350. (In Russ.)

Margiev V.I. 2005. A Development of Theory and Practice of International Law Subjectivity. – Vestnik of Adygeia State University. No. 4. P. 138-143.

Nravstvennye ogranichenia voiny: problemy i primery [Moral Restrictions of War: Problems and Cases]. 2007. Ed. by M. Coppiters, N. Foushin, R. Apresyan. Мoscow: Gardariki, 407 p.

Pashukanis E.B. 1935. Ocherki po meszdunarodnomu pravu [Notes on International Law]. Мoscow: Soviet legislation. 221 p.

Sazonova K.L. 2014. Conception of “Just War” in Contemporary International Law. – Journal of Russian law. No. 5. P. 117-125.

Schmitt K. 2007. Theorie des Partisanen. (Russ. ed.: Schmitt K. Teoria partizana. Pomeszutochnoe Zamechanie k poniatiu politicheskogo. Мoscow: Praxis. 301 p.) 

Content No. 5, 2020

See also:


Glushkova S.I.,
Individual, group, collective and general rights under the conditions of multiculturalism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6

Sungurov A.Yu.,
Human rights as subject of political science and as interdisciplinary conception. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6

Smirnov V.V.,
The human rights political science and political rights in Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6

Kartzov A.S.,
Human rights and tolerance. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6

Magun A.V.,
New Nomos of Earth (Carl Schmitt as Diagnostician of Modern Crisis in World Politics). – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No2

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
2 2006


Medushevsky A.N.
Theory of Constitutional Cycles

 The article text
 

Archive

   2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991