The moral purchase of jus ad vim accommodates the shift toward lower levels of

The moral purchase of jus ad vim accommodates the

This preview shows page 18 - 19 out of 20 pages.

The moral purchase of jus ad vim accommodates the shift toward lower levels of force made possible by advances in technology, such as drones, and by the expo- nential economic and military costs of war. By updating the language of the just war tradition, it helps address the ethical, strategic, and bureaucratic dilemmas facing statesmen and just war theorists today. The introduction of the jus ad vim category, however, raises many questions that require deeper inquiry. Should international law evolve to accommodate technology that privileges jus ad vim acts? If so, how? When is the threshold of last resort for jus ad vim actions crossed? In the case of WMD, when is the threshold between vim and bellum crossed? What level of civilian casualties would satisfy jus ad vim s more restrictive discrimination principle? In what ways do the nonlethal effects of jus ad vim such as increases in terrorist recruitment and long-term post-traumatic stress dis- order alter its moral calculus? What role might jus ad vim acts play in jus post bellum situations (for instance, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya)? To answer these questions, we must fi rst take as our starting point the important distinction between force short of war and war, for the unique ethical contexts raised by the former make clear the need to further develop a theory of jus ad vim . NOTES Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books,  [  ]), pp. xv xvi. In this article, we focus on jus ad vim acts that are military actions. The moral dilemmas posed by other jus ad vim acts that track less closely with common con- ceptions of international violence, including sanctions, blockades, and cyber attacks, are beyond our scope. In future research, it would be important to investigate the extent to which non-violent actions, especially sanctions, adhere to the proportionality principle jus ad vim seeks to preserve. Prominent examples include: Alex J. Bellamy, Is the War on Terror Just? International Relations  , no. (September  ), pp.   ; Nicholas Rengger, The Judgment of War: On the Idea of Legitimate Force in World Politics, Review of International Studies  , no. S (December  ), pp.   ; Brian Orend, The Morality of War (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press,  ); James Turner Johnson, The Just War Idea: The State of the Question, Social Philosophy and Policy  , no. (January  ), pp.   ; Eric A. Heinze and Brent J. Steele, eds., Ethics, Authority and War: Non-State Actors and the Just War Tradition (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,  ); Alex J. Bellamy, When Is it Right to Fight? International Law and Jus ad Bellum , Journal of Military Ethics (September  ), pp.   ; Bradley Jay Strawser, Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles, Journal of Military Ethics , no. (December  ), pp.   ; and James Turner Johnson, Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq: Just War and International Law Perspectives, Journal of Military Ethics , no. (August  ), pp.   . See also the articles in a
Image of page 18
Image of page 19

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture