Search

This article describes libertarian and communitarian ways of bringing individuals together in a political community, argues that social democracy successfully mediates between these and then asks how to improve upon the unimaginative and compromised versions of social democracy that exist in the world today.

This article examines two versions of the proportionality constraint in just war theory, one minimalist, prohibiting almost no military acts, and one maximalist, prohibiting pretty much everything. I argue that neither one meets the needs of the theory and that they should be supplemented and modified by an ethic of responsibility. Ovaj članak ispituje dve verzije ograničenja proporcionalnosti u teoriji pravednog rata, jednu minimalističku, koja ne zabranjuje gotovo nijedna vojna dejstva, i jednu maksimalističku, koja zabranjuje gotovo sve. Tvrdim da nijedna ne zadovoljava potrebe teorije i da bi ih trebalo dopuniti i modifikovati etikom odgovornosti.

International audience; Against an international backdrop of mutating forms of conflict (privatization, judiciarisation), of evolving centers of interest (the environment, police actions, terrorism) and weaponry (armed drones, lethal autonomous weapons systems), the place of war ethics in contemporary thinking must be questioned. This status has been vigorously contested by certain political leaders all while prompting an outpour of debate in academia. This paper aimed to discuss war ethics’ current standing with the help of Michael Walzer. He proposes some clarifications, new questions, but also food for thought on how to apprehend changing conflictuality with his trademark sharpness.; Dans un contexte international de mutation des modalités des conflits (privatisation, judiciarisation), d’évolution des centres d’intérêt (écologie, actions de police, terrorisme) et des armements (drones armés, systèmes d’armes létaux autonomes), la place de l’éthique de la guerre dans la pensée contemporaine doit être questionnée. Vivement contestée par certains dirigeants politiques alors même qu’elle suscite parallèlement un foisonnement de réflexions dans le champ académique, nous avons souhaité aborder son actualité avec Michael Walzer. Il nous propose des clarifications, des interrogations inédites mais également des pistes de réflexion pour aborder les évolutions de la conflictualité avec le regard avisé qui est le sien.

This article is a defense of the Nuremberg Trials. It addresses the standard criticism of the trials and outlines six principles of international law that constitute the legacy of Nuremberg.

The findings reported in the article “Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants,” by Scott Sagan and Benjamin Valentino, are indeed disturbing, but I am not convinced that they tell us all we need to know about public attitudes. Different questions, those that invite respondents to reflect on the reciprocal nature of practical morality (exemplified by the golden rule: “Do unto others . . .”), might reveal very different views of justified and unjustified conduct in war. I believe that these views, regarding, for example, the treatment of prisoners of war, would probably support the idea of the moral equality of soldiers on the battlefield.

The idea of distributive justice has as much to do with being and doing as with having, as much to do with production as with consumption, as much to do with identity and status as with land, capital, or personal possessions. Different political arrangements enforce, and different ideologies justify, different distributions of membership, power, honor, ritual eminence, divine grace, kinship and love, knowledge, wealdi, physical security, work and leisure, rewards and punishments, and a host of goods more narrowly and materially conceived – food, shelter, clothing, transportation, medical care, commodities of every sort, and all the, old things (paintings, rare books, postage stamps) that human beings collect, And this multiplicity of goods is matched by a multiplicity of distributive procedures, agents, and criteria.

One of the historical tasks of the left in the present period is to help hold the center. The defense of civil liberties and civil rights in the name of the constitution—this is a centrist politics. We should work closely with anyone who believes in civil discourse, who respects the truth, and who is ready to live with political and religious disagreement. Does she defend the social hierarchy? Does he think that free enterprise is the be-all and end-all of economic life? Are they more ready than we are to use force abroad? Those are arguments we need to have and should not give up, but we still have to join with people like these wherever we find them—so that the center holds. The survival of a vital center is also the precondition of an active left. We have to stand in the center and on the left at the same time. That may be complicated, but it is our historical task.

This is an article with a simple argument: that what “internationalism” requires of all leftists is a commitment to listen to comrades abroad. “All defenders of human rights,” Shirin Ebadi has written, “are members of a single family.” Is the American left part of the family? We certainly are active and engaged members whenever the violations of human rights can be attributed to our own government. Not so much when other agents are at work.