Abstract
Revisionist just war theory has gained considerable traction in recent years, debunking long-standing principles in the morality of war. This development cannot be ignored by war crimes lawyers. Philosophers on both sides of these debates as well as many lawyers understand the attacked principles to provide the moral underpinning of the contemporary war crimes regime. This perceived tension is erroneous. A panoramic view of the applicable law reveals it to be more revisionist in its moral posture than is ordinarily recognized. First, increasing recognition of the applicability of international human rights law in armed conflict reflects growing skepticism of the normative exceptionalism of war. Second, the criminalization of aggression reflects the moral inequality of combatants. Third, the legal distinction between civilians and combatants is understood best through a combination of individual liability and necessity—principles that can be accommodated in more nuanced ways as human rights law gains traction. Gaps remain, but there is more common ground between international law and revisionist theory than either lawyers or theorists tend to recognize.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This is not to say that all unjust combatants are liable to be killed (a point addressed below). Rather, it is to say that the jus ad bellum is a relevant factor in liability.
- 2.
As noted above, many of these features are woven into orthodox thought. The key difference is that revisionists are more likely to identify them as either excuses or limited and contingent grounds for non-attribution.
- 3.
To be clear, the question of whether an action qualifies as an international use of force for the purposes of the jus ad bellum does not map perfectly onto whether it qualifies as an international armed conflict for the purpose of IHL—the use of proxy forces in some circumstances may constitute an aggression without creating an IAC—but the basic point holds. On this, see, for example, Nicaragua (1986, ¶¶191–195; 228–230).
- 4.
In a technical sense, one might question whether the category “combatants” exists in NIACs. However, there clearly is a classification between civilians protected from attack and persons legally liable to attack in NIACs, whatever terminology one uses to describe the latter.
- 5.
Article 1(4) of Additional Protocol I of 1977 grants the privileges of belligerency to non-state groups fighting wars of self-determination against alien occupation, racist regimes, or colonial domination. This provision has remained entirely dormant, but for the situation of the Polisario Front fighting the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara (Macˇák 2018).
- 6.
- 7.
Killing an agent who poses a lethal threat as the necessary way of eliminating that threat is eliminative. It leaves the killer (or those she is protecting) no better off than had her target never existed. As Lazar puts it, the target is “not a resource” for the killer, but the very “problem that [is] solve[d]” by the killing (Lazar 2015, p. 60). In contrast, opportunistic forms of killing involve using the target as a resource to achieve the killer’s end. Within the latter category, “merely opportunistic” killing targets persons who are in some way responsible (upstream) for the threat the killer now faces, and who may, for that reason, be thought to have forfeited, at least partly, their claim not to be targeted so as to quell that threat (Frowe 2014, p. 179). This may be distinguished from the “exploitative” killing of those who are not responsible at all for the threat, and who cannot be said to have forfeited their right not to be targeted, but who the killer uses as a resource in resisting the threat.
References
Advisory opinion on legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory. 2004. International Court of Justice. 2004 ICJ Reports 136.
Advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. 1996. International Court of Justice. 1996 ICJ Reports 226.
Constitutive Act of the African Union. 2000. https://au.int/en/constitutive-act. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Human Rights Committee. 2001. General comment 29: States of emergency (article 4). UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11.
———. 2004. General comment 31: The nature of the general legal obligation on states parties to the Covenant. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13.
———. 2018. General comment 36: On article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36.
Isayava v. Russia. 2005. European Court of Human Rights, application no. 57950/00.
United States et al. v. Göring et. al. 1946. International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) Judgment. In Vol. 22 of Trial of the major war criminals before the international military tribunal, 411.
Shawcross, Hartley. 1946. Closing statement. United States v. Göring et. al. In Vol. 19 of Trial of the major war criminals before the international military tribunal, 458.
McCann v. United Kingdom. 1995. European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), application no. 18984/91.
Mendez, Juan E. 2002. Detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2002. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, request for precautionary measures. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/guantanamo-2003.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Nicaragua v. United States. 1986. International Court of Justice. Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (merits). 1986 ICJ Reports 14.
Osman v. United Kingdom. 1998. European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), application no. 23452/94.
Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi. 2016. International Criminal Court. Trial Chamber judgment. Case ICC-01/12–01/15.
Prosecutor v. Blaškic´. 2004. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Appeals Chamber judgment. Case IT-95-14-A.
Prosecutor v. Tadic´. 1995. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Appeals Chamber decision on the defence motion for interlocutory (Appeal on jurisdiction). Case IT-94-1-AR72.
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel. 2006. Supreme Court of Israel. HCJ 769/02.
Statute of the International Criminal Court. 2011. Doc No. ICC-PIDS-LT-01-002/11_Eng. Originally: July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90. Last amended November 29, 2010, depository notification C.N.651.2010.TREATIES-8. https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/add16852-aee9-4757-abe7-9cdc7cf02886/283503/romestatuteng1.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
United States Department of State. 2011. Fourth periodic report of the United States to the Human Rights Committee. www.state.gov—179781.htm. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
———. 2016. Report on the legal and policy frameworks guiding the United States’ use of military force and related national security options. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/framework.Report_Final.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
United States et al. v. Araki et al. 1948. Repr. in Vol. 22 of The Tokyo war crimes trial, ed. John Pritchard and Sonia M. Zaide. New York: Garland. (1981).
World Summit Outcome Document. 2005. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/1, September 16.
Anscombe, G.E.M. 1981. Mr. Truman’s degree. In Ethics, religion and politics, 62–71. Oxford: Blackwell. (Orig. pub. 1958).
Arneson, Richard J. 2006. Just warfare theory and noncombatant immunity. Cornell International Law Journal 39: 663–688.
———. 2017. Resolving the responsibility dilemma. In The ethics of war: Essays, ed. Saba Bazargan-Forward and Sam Rickless, 67–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baxter, Richard R. 1951. So-called “unprivileged belligerency”. British Yearbook of International Law 28: 323–345.
Bazargan, Saba. 2013. Complicitous liability in war. Philosophical Studies 165: 177–195.
Bazargan-Forward, Saba. 2015. Review of terrorism and the right to resist: A theory of just revolutionary war. Ethics 127: 481–486.
Benbaji, Yitzhak. 2008. A defense of the traditional war convention. Ethics 118 (3): 464–495.
———. 2011. The moral power of soldiers to undertake the duty of obedience. Ethics 122: 43–73.
Blum, Gabriella. 2010a. The laws of war and the “lesser evil”. Yale Journal of International Law 35: 1–69.
———. 2010b. The dispensable lives of soldiers. Journal of Legal Analysis 2: 115–170.
Chehtman, Alejandro. 2018a. Review of Sparing civilians. Jurisprudence 9: 431–437.
———. 2018b. Revisionist just war theory and the concept of war crimes. Leiden Journal of International Law 31: 171–194.
Dannenbaum, Tom. 2017. Why have we criminalized aggressive war? Yale Law Journal 126: 1242–1318.
———. 2018. The crime of aggression, humanity, and the soldier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dill, Janina. 2013. Should international law ensure the moral acceptability of war? Leiden Journal of International Law 26: 253–270.
Dill, Janina, and Henry Shue. 2012. Limiting the killing in war: Military necessity and the St. Petersburg assumption. Ethics and International Affairs 26: 311–333.
Dinstein, Yoram. 2012. War, aggression, and self-defence. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2014. Non-international armed conflicts in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2016. The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörmann, Knut. 2003. The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants”. International Review of the Red Cross 85 (849): 45–74.
Draper, G.I.A.D. 1979. Humanitarian law and human rights. Acta Juridica 1979: 193–206.
Drumbl, Mark. 2007. Atrocity, punishment and international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dworkin, Anthony. 2017. Individual, not collective: Justifying the resort to force against members of non-state armed groups. International Law Studies 93: 476–525.
Englehart, Neil A. 2009. State capacity, state failure, and human rights. Journal of Peace Research 46: 163–180.
Estlund, David. 2007. On following orders in an unjust war. Journal of Political Philosophy 15: 213–234.
Fabre, Cécile. 2012. Cosmopolitan war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016. Cosmopolitan peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finkelstein, Claire. 2016. Killing in war and the moral equality thesis. Social Philosophy and Policy 32 (2): 184–203.
Finlay, Christopher J. 2015. Terrorism and the right to resist: A theory of just revolutionary war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frowe, Helen. 2014. Defensive killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenwood, Christopher. 1983. The relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Review of International Studies 9: 221–234.
Hakimi, Monica. 2018. The theory and practice at the intersection between human rights and humanitarian law. American Journal of International Law 111: 1063–1074.
Haque, Adil Ahmad. 2017. Law and morality at war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hathaway, Oona, and Schott Shapiro. 2017. The internationalists. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Heyns, Christof, Dapo Akande, Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne, and Thomas Chengeta. 2016. The international law framework regulating the use of armed drones. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 65: 791–827.
Institut de Droit International. 1971. Conditions of application of humanitarian rules of armed conflict to hostilities in which United Nations forces may be engaged.
Jinks, Derek. 2014. International human rights law in time of armed conflict. In The Oxford handbook of international law in armed conflict, ed. Andrew Clapham and Paola Gaeta, 656–674. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kahn, Paul. 2008. Sacred violence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kreß, Claus. 2015. Towards further developing the law of non-international armed conflict: A proposal for a jus in bello interno and a new jus contra bellum internum. International Review of the Red Cross 96 (893): 30–44.
Kutz, Christopher. 2005. The difference uniforms make: Collective violence in criminal law and war. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33: 148–180.
———. 2008. Fearful symmetry. In Just and unjust warriors: The moral and legal status of soldiers, ed. David Rodin and Henry Shue, 69–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2014. What rights may be defended by means of war? In The morality of defensive war, ed. Cécile Fabre and Seth Lazar, 229–246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lauterpacht, Hersch. 1953. The limits of the operation of the law of war. British Yearbook of International Law 30: 206–243.
Lazar, Seth. 2010. The responsibility dilemma for killing in war: A review essay. Philosophy and Public Affairs 38: 180–213.
———. 2013. Associative duties and the ethics of killing in war. Journal of Practical Ethics. http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/associative-duties-and-the-ethics-of-killing-in-war/. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
———. 2015. Sparing civilians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2017. War. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/war/. Accessed on 26 Feb 2019.
Lieblich, Eliav. 2016. Internal jus ad bellum. Hastings Law Journal 67: 687–748.
Luban, David. 1994. Legal modernism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
———. 2010. Fairness to rightness. In The philosophy of international law, ed. Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas, 569–588. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016. Human rights thinking and the laws of war. In Theoretical boundaries of armed conflict and human rights, ed. Jens David Ohlin, 45–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2018. Knowing when not to fight. In Oxford handbook of the ethics of war, ed. Seth Lazar and Helen Frowe, 185–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macˇák, Kubo. 2018. Wars of national liberation: The story of one unusual rule II. Oxford University Press Blog. https://blog.oup.com/2018/07/wars-national-liberation-unusual-rule-part-2/. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.
Mavrodes, George I. 1975. Conventions and the morality of war. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 4: 117–131.
May, Larry. 2008. Aggression and crimes against peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMahan, Jeff. 2004. War as self-defense. Ethics & International Affairs 18: 75–80.
———. 2005. The basis of moral liability to defensive killing. Philosophical Issues 15: 386–405.
———. 2008. The morality of war and the law of war. In Just and unjust warriors: The moral and legal status of soldiers, ed. David Rodin and Henry Shue, 19–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2009. Killing in war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2011. Who is liable to be killed in war. Analysis 71: 544–559.
———. 2013. War crimes and immoral action in war. In The constitution of criminal law, ed. Antony Duff, Lindsay Farmer, Sandra Marshall, and Victor Tadros, 151–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2016. Unjust war and the crime of aggression. In The crime of aggression: A commentary, ed. Claus Kreß and Stefan Barriga, 1386–1397. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mégret, Frédéric. 2015. Response to Claus Kreß: Leveraging the privilege of belligerency in non-international armed conflict towards respect for the jus in bello. International Review of the Red Cross 96 (893): 44–66.
———. 2016. What is the specific evil of aggression? In The crime of aggression: A commentary, ed. Claus Kreß and Stefan Barriga, 1398–1453. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melzer, Nils. 2009. Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
Meron, Theodor. 2006. The humanization of international law. Leiden: Brill.
Mill, John Stuart. 1993. On liberty. In Utilitarianism, on liberty. London: Everyman. (Orig. pub. 1859).
Nagel, Thomas. 1972. War and massacre. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 123–144.
Neff, Stephen C. 2005. War and the law of nations: A general history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, Richard. 1995. Ethics, killing, and war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ohlin, Jens David. 2016. The crime of bootstrapping. In The crime of aggression: A commentary, ed. Claus Kreß and Stefan Barriga, 1454–1479. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oppenheim, Lassa. 1905, 1906. International law: A treatise. Vols. 1 and 2. 1st ed. https://archive.org/details/internationallaw12oppe/page/n5; https://archive.org/details/internationallaw12oppe/page/n671
Parry, Jonathan. 2017. Defensive harm, consent, and intervention. Philosophy and Public Affairs 45: 356–396.
Pobjie, Erin. 2016. Victims of the crime of aggression. In The crime of aggression: A commentary, ed. Claus Kreß and Stefan Barriga, 816–860. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quong, Jonathan. 2009. Killing in self-defense. Ethics 119: 507–537.
Rodin, David. 2002. War and self-defense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sassòli, Marco. 2007. Jus ad bellum and jus in bello—The separation between the legality of the use of force and humanitarian rules to be respected in warfare: Crucial or outdated? In International law and armed conflict: Exploring the faultlines, ed. Michael N. Schmitt and Jelena Pejic, 241–264. Leiden: Brill.
Schachter, Oscar. 1984. The right of states to use armed force. Michigan Law Review 82: 1620–1646.
Shue, Henry. 2008. Do we need a “morality of war”? In Just and unjust warriors: The moral and legal status of soldiers, ed. David Rodin and Henry Shue, 87–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2013. Laws of war, morality, and international politics. Leiden Journal International Law 26: 271–292.
Sloane, Robert D. 2007. The expressive capacity of international punishment. Stanford Journal of International Law 43: 39–94.
Solera, Oscar. 2007. Defining the crime of aggression. London: Cameron May.
Stahn, Carsten. 2010. The “end”, the “beginning of the end” or the “end of the beginning”? Leiden Journal of International Law 23: 875–882.
Teitel, Ruti. 2011. Humanity’s law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Global Campaign for Ratification and Implementation of the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression. 2019. Status of ratification and implementation, update no. 33 (information as of 11 April 2019). https://crimeofaggression.info/the-role-of-states/status-of-ratification-and-implementation/. Accessed 20 Aug 2019.
von Sternberg, Mark R. 1993. Political asylum and the law of internal armed conflict: Refugee status, human rights and humanitarian law concerns. International Journal of Refugee Law 5: 153–182.
Waldron, Jeremy. 2018. Deep morality and the laws of war. In The Oxford handbook of the ethics of war, ed. Seth Lazar and Helen Frowe, 80–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walzer, Michael. 1977. Just and unjust wars. New York: Basic Books.
———. 1980. The moral standing of states: A response to four critics. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9: 209–229.
———. 2006. Response to McMahan’s paper. Philosophia 34: 43–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dannenbaum, T. (2019). War Crimes and Just War Theory. In: Alexander, L., Kessler Ferzan, K. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22811-8_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22811-8_33
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22810-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22811-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)