Just and Unjust Wars

Reading Questions

Is there a moral reality of war?
- Yes, but it is a sliding scale based on the type of aggression that has occurred and risk to the nationals involved.
What are the basic terms and concepts undergirding the study of the laws of war?
1. The laws of war are structured around two distinct legal-ethical frameworks: jus ad bellum (the conditions under which it is just to enter a war) and jus in bello (the moral conduct required once war has commenced).
2. Jus ad bellum typically encompasses criteria such as just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, and proportionality—all aimed at limiting when it is permissible to resort to force.
3. Jus in bello emphasizes battlefield ethics, with key principles including distinction (combatants vs. non‑combatants), proportionality, military necessity, and humane treatment of prisoners and civilians .
4. These two bodies of law are deliberately kept independent: an unjust cause (jus ad bellum) does not automatically invalidate lawful conduct (jus in bello), and vice versa .
5. Modern discourse also increasingly includes jus post bellum, which addresses justice after conflict (such as rebuilding, accountability, and reparations), though this is considered a later, evolving component of the just‑war tradition.
What is Walzer’s position on ends justifying means?
- He disagrees with the idea, going so far as in some instances arguing it is better to submit than to fight for freedom.
Do just war arguments collapse in the face of power or are there real consequences for “breaking the rules?”
- For most countries/people, they do collapse. IMHO, this is just Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, easy to sit on a moral pedestal when your needs are fulfilled, much harder to do when you are fighting for survival. Additionally, there is no world police, so international norms/treaties are as firm as the holder wants them to be based on there power.
What compels states to “win well?”
- Holding the moral high ground is advantageous to states because it allows them to pressure similar nations to support future efforts and reduces the perception that they are a security risk to allies.
What benefits can they claim from fighting the “good” fight?
- See above.
Is the just war tradition a Western idea or are laws and mores of war universal?
- Much like our readings on rational actors, the just war tradition is universally held, but people are able to change the definition on a whim based on time period, context, and events. Any strict definition of just war, I would argue, would lead to the concept being a tradition nowhere.

Online Description

“A classic in the field” (New York Times), this is a penetrating investigation into moral and ethical questions raised by war, drawing on examples from antiquity to the present. Just and Unjust Wars has forever changed how we think about the ethics of conflict. In this modern classic, political philosopher Michael Walzer examines the moral issues that arise before, during, and after the wars we fight. Reaching from the Athenian attack on Melos, to the Mai Lai massacre, to the war in Afghanistan and beyond, Walzer mines historical and contemporary accounts and the testimony of participants, decision makers, and victims to explain when war is justified and what ethical limitations apply to those who wage it.

🔫 Author Background

Michael Walzer is a renowned American political theorist and professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He has been a leading voice in political ethics, particularly on issues of war, justice, and humanitarian intervention. Walzer’s experiences studying historical conflicts and moral philosophy shaped his critique of realism and his defense of just war theory. A co-editor of the journal Dissent, he was deeply engaged in public debates during the Vietnam War, which influenced his belief that moral reasoning must guide wartime conduct. His book Just and Unjust Wars reflects decades of scholarship aimed at bridging ethical theory and real-world military decision-making.

🔍 Author’s Main Issue / Thesis

Walzer argues that traditional just war theory remains relevant and essential, even in the context of modern asymmetric warfare. He emphasizes that moral reasoning should guide military actions, particularly in conflicts involving vast disparities between powerful state armies and weaker insurgent groups.

📒 Sections

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Central Questions

How can traditional just war principles be adapted to modern asymmetric conflicts?
What moral obligations do armies and insurgents have in protecting civilians?

Key Premises and Arguments

Relevance of just war theory:
- Despite skepticism, just war theory effectively guided critiques of earlier conflicts like Vietnam; it remains applicable today.
Asymmetric Warfare Dynamics:
- Modern warfare typically involves powerful, organized state armies and weaker insurgent groups. Each side claims moral justification for bending rules due to the conditions of asymmetry.
Moral Obligations of Armies:
- Even in difficult situations, armies must uphold moral distinctions between combatants and civilians. Soldiers must accept increased personal risk to minimize civilian casualties.
Insurgents’ Responsibilities:
- Insurgents’ arguments about necessity (fighting from civilian populations, lacking uniforms, etc.) often fail to justify deliberate targeting or endangering civilians.
Proportionality and civilian Protection:
- Traditional proportionality has been interpreted too permissively; modern asymmetric warfare requires stricter interpretations to protect civilians effectively.
Importance of Political Solutions:
- Military actions should always be preceded or accompanied by political attempts to address underlying grievances. If war replaces politics, its morality is questionable.
Global Moral Accountability:
- International public opinion and judgments significantly influence wartime behavior, potentially reducing the frequency and severity of asymmetric wars.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Examples: Vietnam War, Afghanistan, Gaza, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Iraq.
Real-world dilemmas: Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan firing from civilian buildings, Hamas rocket launch sites within populated areas, and historical contexts like WWII bombings to illustrate complexities of proportionality.

Identified Assumptions

Universal acceptance and applicability of moral principles like civilian protection.
Soldiers can and should be morally trained to prioritize civilian safety.
Insurgents frequently exploit moral protections cynically, using civilians as shields or provocations.
Ethical discourse can effectively shape international and domestic public opinion about wars.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Idealism: Walzer may underestimate operational realities that constrain military actions in highly asymmetric contexts.
Unfair Burden on Soldiers: Soldiers’ obligation to assume personal risks to protect civilians might be seen as unrealistic or unjust in certain scenarios.
Complexity of Proportionality: Acknowledged ambiguity remains around proportionality judgments, potentially undermining their consistent application.
Political Action First: His insistence that political avenues precede military action could neglect urgent scenarios where immediate action is necessary.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer contributes to ongoing debates within just war theory and international ethics, seeking practical solutions for modern warfare’s complex moral landscape.
His larger goal is to reinforce global moral accountability, influencing public and political judgment on wartime conduct.

Summary of Preface

Walzer revisits just war theory in the modern context, particularly asymmetric conflicts, emphasizing the moral obligations of both armies and insurgents. He argues strongly for maintaining ethical standards, especially the protection of civilians, even amid challenging wartime conditions. His discussion acknowledges pragmatic difficulties but insists that moral and political engagement, guided by traditional ethical principles, remains essential.

Chapter 1

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues against the realist perspective that war exists outside moral evaluation. He contends that war, despite being driven by necessity and survival, is inherently moral and should be judged accordingly. Ethical principles should inform and guide decisions in warfare.

Central Questions

Is war subject to moral judgment, or does necessity exempt it from ethical scrutiny?
How can we justify or condemn actions taken in wartime?

Key Premises and Arguments

Critique of Realism:
- Realists claim morality and law have no place in war, viewing war purely as survival and necessity. Walzer opposes this view, asserting that morality cannot be discarded even in war.
Moral Language of War:
- Despite claims that “all’s fair in love and war,” humanity consistently uses morally charged language (e.g., aggression, self-defense, cruelty, atrocity) to discuss war, demonstrating an implicit moral framework.
Historical Examples (Melian Dialogue):
- Analyzing Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue, Walzer illustrates the realist position: power dictates outcomes, and morality is secondary. He rejects this as morally inadequate, arguing it disguises unjust aggression under the guise of necessity.
Strategy vs. morality:
- Strategic arguments (military necessity) often attempt to override moral objections. Walzer insists strategy must still adhere to ethical constraints.
Historical Relativism:
- Walzer acknowledges but critiques historical relativism, arguing that while contexts change, fundamental moral standards remain applicable to war.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Texts and Cases:
- Melian Dialogue from Thucydides highlights realist arguments that power dictates war, not morality.
- References to various historical incidents underline how moral arguments persistently influence debates about war conduct.

Identified Assumptions

Universal morality exists and remains relevant even under extreme wartime conditions.
Language and moral discourse reflect genuine ethical commitments rather than mere rhetorical flourishes.
Historical examples effectively demonstrate universal moral standards despite changing contexts.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Idealistic Assumption: Walzer presumes widespread acceptance of ethical norms, potentially underestimating cultural or pragmatic resistance.
Real-world Application: May overlook practical constraints faced by military strategists where ethical ideals conflict with survival imperatives.
Overemphasis on Historical Cases: Reliance on select historical examples could oversimplify or neglect complexities present in contemporary warfare.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer seeks to firmly establish war as an inherently moral enterprise, aiming to reinforce accountability and ethical discourse in military and political decision-making.
His broader goal involves challenging realist arguments to foster deeper moral awareness and responsibility in international conflicts.

Summary of Chapter

In Chapter 1, Walzer rejects the realist argument that morality is irrelevant to war. By examining historical examples, notably Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue, he demonstrates that moral evaluation is not only inevitable but essential. His analysis highlights the persistence of ethical judgment in wartime decisions, countering claims of necessity and self-interest dominating war’s moral landscape.

Chapter 2

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer asserts that war itself is fundamentally a crime due to its inherently coercive and violent nature. However, he argues that this crime can sometimes be justified if undertaken for morally compelling reasons, such as self-defense or humanitarian intervention.

Central Questions

In what sense is war inherently criminal?
Under what conditions can war be morally justified despite its inherent criminality?

Key Premises and Arguments

War as an Inherent Crime:
- Walzer argues war is inherently coercive and destructive, fundamentally violating individual rights and freedoms, and thus is morally problematic by its very nature.
Clausewitz’s Logic of War:
- He examines Clausewitz’s concept of war as an extension of politics by other means, highlighting the risks of war escalating into absolute violence without ethical constraints.
Limitations of Consent:
- Walzer discusses the concept of “consent” in warfare, suggesting that individuals rarely give meaningful consent to war’s consequences, thus magnifying its moral seriousness and criminal nature.
Tyranny of War:
- War, once initiated, tends to override moral and social constraints, potentially devolving into brutal conduct and crimes against humanity.
Historical Example – General Sherman:
- The burning of Atlanta by General Sherman in the American Civil War illustrates the moral complexity and criminal potential inherent in military necessity and strategy.

Main Supporting Evidence

Theoretical Foundations: Clausewitz’s theory emphasizing the potential escalation of war’s inherent violence.
Historical Case Study: General Sherman’s destructive campaign through Georgia exemplifies the moral challenges and potential criminality inherent in warfare.

Identified Assumptions

Individuals have inherent rights and freedoms that war fundamentally violates.
Ethical reasoning can and should moderate the conduct of war, even under severe strategic pressures.
military necessity cannot fully justify actions that profoundly violate moral principles.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Idealistic Expectation: Walzer’s critique of war as criminal may appear too idealistic or impractical given the realities of warfare.
Consent Problematic: His assertion regarding the lack of meaningful consent by participants might underestimate personal and national willingness to engage in justified wars.
Overgeneralization of Historical Examples: Using the example of General Sherman might oversimplify or selectively emphasize the criminal nature of war, ignoring justified military actions.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer’s broader aim is to deepen the moral consciousness regarding war by underscoring its inherent destructiveness and criminality, while still allowing space for justified warfare.
He advocates stringent ethical scrutiny and moral accountability in wartime conduct to prevent unnecessary violence and protect human rights.

Summary of Chapter

In Chapter 2, Walzer examines war as inherently criminal due to its coercive and destructive nature, referencing Clausewitz’s theories and historical examples like General Sherman’s campaign. He argues that ethical principles must rigorously guide warfare to mitigate its moral costs, asserting that even justified wars require critical moral examination.

Chapter 3

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that even in war, moral rules (the “war convention”) exist to regulate conduct, primarily through upholding the moral equality of soldiers and the principle of noncombatant immunity, thereby restricting war’s inherent destructiveness.

Central Questions

What moral rules govern the conduct of war (jus in bello)?
How do these rules maintain the humanity of warfare despite its violence?

Key Premises and Arguments

Moral Equality of Soldiers:
- All combatants, regardless of the justice of their cause, are equally entitled to fight and must adhere to the same moral restraints.
The War Convention:
- An implicit contract among soldiers and states that sets limits on permissible conduct (such as sparing noncombatants and respecting surrender).
Types of Rules:
- Walzer distinguishes between two kinds: rules that restrain soldiers’ conduct regardless of outcomes, and rules that incorporate considerations like proportionality.
Case of Hitler’s Generals:
- Illustrates moral complexities when leaders justify violating conventions under claims of necessity.
Example of Surrender:
- Highlighting that the acceptance of surrender is a crucial rule that maintains humanity even in war.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Examples: Nazi Germany’s violations of established war conventions, contrasted with cases where acceptance of surrender preserved life.
Philosophical Foundations: Builds on traditions from Grotius and the just war tradition to explain why these conventions exist.

Identified Assumptions

That shared moral conventions can meaningfully restrain behavior even amid violent conflict.
That soldiers on all sides recognize and benefit from maintaining these rules.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Moral Symmetry Problem: Treating all soldiers as morally equal may obscure distinctions between aggressors and defenders.
Practical Enforcement: Assumes conventions will be honored in practice, which historical violations often contradict.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer seeks to show how moral constraints embedded in the “war convention” are essential to preserving a degree of humanity and limiting atrocities, regardless of who fights or why.

Summary of Chapter

In Chapter 3, Walzer explores the moral rules that govern conduct within war, arguing that conventions such as protecting noncombatants and honoring surrender preserve humanity amidst violence. Through examples and philosophical grounding, he contends these norms form a crucial ethical structure that soldiers are obligated to respect, even when war itself cannot be eliminated.

Chapter 4

Structured Notes: Chapter 4 - Law and Order in International Society

Text Information

Book: Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations
Author: Michael Walzer
Edition: Fifth Edition (2015)
Section: Chapter 4

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that international society is structured by a legal and moral order that treats aggression as the primary crime in war. This “legalist paradigm” underpins the rights of political communities and sets the moral framework for when wars can be justly fought.

Central Questions

Why is aggression considered the supreme crime in international affairs?
How does the international moral and legal order protect the rights of political communities?

Key Premises and Arguments

aggression as the Fundamental Wrong:
- War is primarily condemned because it violates the territorial integrity and political sovereignty of communities.
Rights of Political Communities:
- States and nations have rights analogous to individual rights; violations justify defensive wars.
The Legalist Paradigm:
- A shared moral and legal framework where wars are only just if they respond to aggression; serves as the foundation of international order.
Historical Illustrations:
- Cases such as Alsace-Lorraine and the Munich Crisis demonstrate how violations of political rights provoke conflict.
Critiques and Challenges:
- Explores views of Marx (who saw wars as tied to deeper class struggles) and arguments for appeasement versus collective security.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Cases:
- Alsace-Lorraine disputes, Czechoslovakia under Munich, Finland’s defensive war.
Intellectual Arguments:
- Contrasts Marxist interpretations with traditional sovereign rights models.

Identified Assumptions

That political communities, like individuals, have inherent rights that should be protected by an international moral order.
That breaches of sovereignty generally represent clear moral wrongs justifying war in defense.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

State-Centric View: May underplay the rights and aspirations of sub-state groups (minorities, secessionist movements).
Rigid Paradigm: The legalist framework might inadequately address wars of national liberation or humanitarian intervention that do not fit neatly into defense against aggression.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer’s broader project continues to establish a moral framework governing war, grounding it in respect for the rights of political communities as the bulwark against arbitrary aggression and chaos.

Summary of Chapter

In Chapter 4, Walzer defends the “legalist paradigm” that treats aggression as the core moral and legal wrong in international relations, legitimizing wars of defense. By rooting international ethics in the rights of political communities, he builds the case for why most wars are wrong and why certain wars (in response to aggression) are morally obligatory.

Chapter 5

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer explores the moral legitimacy of anticipatory wars, distinguishing between preemptive strikes against imminent threats and preventive wars aimed at distant dangers, arguing that only the former have a strong moral justification.

Central Questions

When, if ever, is it morally justified to strike first in anticipation of attack?
How does international morality differentiate between preemptive and preventive war?

Key Premises and Arguments

Distinction Between Preemptive and Preventive War:
- Preemptive war responds to a clear, imminent threat; preventive war aims to neutralize a possible future threat.
Moral Justification of Preemption:
- Walzer supports preemptive strikes when evidence of immediate danger is overwhelming and delay would increase vulnerability.
Condemnation of Preventive War:
- Preventive wars lack the immediate necessity that justifies preemption and therefore resemble aggression.
Historical Illustrations:
- The War of the Spanish Succession as an example of flawed preventive logic; Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War offered as a morally plausible preemptive strike.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Cases:
- The Spanish Succession War criticized as an unjust preventive conflict.
- Israel’s strike in 1967 defended due to credible imminent threats.

Identified Assumptions

That imminence can be reasonably assessed to separate preemption from aggression.
That states are capable of acting on clear evidence rather than speculation.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Ambiguity of Imminence: Difficulty in clearly establishing when threats are imminent enough to justify preemptive force.
Risk of Abuse: States may manipulate claims of preemption to justify aggression.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer continues to refine the moral boundaries of just war theory, seeking to prevent wars that mask aggression under the guise of security while allowing legitimate self-defense.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 5 analyzes anticipatory war, drawing a sharp moral line between legitimate preemptive defense against immediate threats and illegitimate preventive wars against speculative dangers. Walzer underscores that only genuinely imminent threats justify striking first, warning against stretching this rationale to cloak aggression.

Chapter 6

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that military interventions can be morally justified in certain cases, particularly to assist peoples fighting for self-determination or to prevent massive human rights violations. However, interventions are heavily constrained by respect for political communities’ sovereignty.

Central Questions

When is it morally legitimate to intervene militarily in another country’s affairs?
How does the principle of self-determination shape the ethics of intervention?

Key Premises and Arguments

Self-Determination and Self-Help:
- Peoples have the primary right to shape their political futures; outsiders should intervene only under strict conditions.
Three Main Cases for intervention:
- Counter-intervention: to balance foreign powers already interfering.
- Secessionist aid: in clear cases of national liberation where people are denied political expression.
- Humanitarian intervention: to stop massacres or extreme oppression.
Mill’s Argument:
- Draws on John Stuart Mill’s position that people must win their own freedom for it to be meaningful; outside intervention often undermines genuine self-determination.
Historical Examples:
- The Hungarian Revolution (1956), American war in Vietnam, Cuba in 1898, and Bangladesh in 1971 used to examine moral complexities.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Cases: Highlight the diverse outcomes and ethical puzzles, e.g. Soviet suppression of Hungary, controversial U.S. actions in Vietnam, contrasting with the moral clarity of aiding Bangladesh.

Identified Assumptions

That sovereignty and self-determination are foundational political rights that external intervention must not violate lightly.
That peoples denied any political recourse or facing slaughter justify exceptional intervention.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Risk of Manipulation: Powerful states may misuse humanitarian rationales for strategic or economic interests.
Blurred Lines: Difficult to distinguish genuine liberation movements from civil wars or factional conflicts.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer’s argument situates intervention within the broader moral architecture that respects political communities but makes room for exceptions when grave injustice or external meddling threatens fundamental rights.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 6 elaborates the moral grounds for military intervention, insisting on a high threshold to override sovereignty: countering prior foreign interference, supporting genuine struggles for national liberation, or preventing atrocities. Walzer warns that intervention must protect, not replace, peoples’ own agency.

Chapter 7

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that how a war ends matters morally as much as how it is fought. Just wars require just settlements, and sometimes achieving a decisive victory is necessary to secure justice and prevent further violence.

Central Questions

Why does the manner in which wars conclude carry moral weight?
When is unconditional surrender or strong settlement ethically justified?

Key Premises and Arguments

Justice in Settlements:
- A just war must aim at a just peace; if settlements ignore the causes of conflict or impose undue harm, they undermine the justification for the war.
The Moral Importance of Winning:
- Sometimes winning outright is crucial to preventing future aggression or securing rights (e.g., the defeat of Nazi Germany).
Historical Examples:
- Allied policy in World War II, the Korean War armistice, and examples where leniency or harshness in settlements had lasting consequences.
Unconditional Surrender:
- Examines when demanding total defeat (as with Nazi Germany) is necessary to dismantle unjust regimes and prevent renewal of conflict.

Main Supporting Evidence

World War II: Justification for unconditional surrender of the Axis powers to eliminate regimes that could reignite global violence.
Korean War: Illustrates limits of settlement when failing to fully resolve issues, leaving tensions that endure.

Identified Assumptions

That achieving a stable, morally sound peace sometimes requires decisively defeating unjust regimes.
That moral obligations extend beyond war’s conduct to its political outcomes.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Risk of Overreach: Pursuit of total victory can blur into revenge or disproportionate punishment.
Judging Future Stability: Assumes we can accurately predict what kind of settlement will secure long-term peace.

Larger Context/Aim

This chapter links jus ad bellum and jus post bellum by showing that wars must aim not just at fighting justly but at establishing a just aftermath. It broadens moral responsibility to include the terms of peace.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 7 underscores that moral analysis of war must include how it ends. Walzer argues that sometimes only a decisive victory ensures justice and lasting peace, using historical examples to highlight the need for settlements that dismantle unjust powers while cautioning against excess.

Chapter 8

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that even in war, how one fights—the means used—is morally significant. The conduct of war must be limited by principles like utility, proportionality, and above all, respect for human rights.

Central Questions

How do principles like proportionality and utility limit the conduct of war?
Why is it morally imperative to fight well, not just to fight for a just cause?

Key Premises and Arguments

Utility and Proportionality:
- Walzer draws on Henry Sidgwick’s arguments that the harms inflicted in war must be balanced against military advantages. Excessive harm violates moral norms.
Human Rights as Constraints:
- Respect for the inherent rights of individuals must temper wartime actions, regardless of military goals.
Examples of Excess:
- Case studies like the rape of Italian women by occupying forces illustrate the violations of human dignity that fighting well is meant to prevent.
Fighting Well vs. Winning:
- Moral responsibility does not end with cause; how soldiers conduct themselves—avoiding cruelty, unnecessary destruction—is crucial.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical and philosophical examples: Sidgwick’s utilitarian arguments, plus wartime atrocities that show failures of moral constraints.

Identified Assumptions

That human rights are fundamental and cannot be overridden by military objectives.
That proportional harm relative to advantage is both measurable and ethically meaningful.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Vagueness of Proportionality: Difficult to quantify or agree on what counts as disproportionate.
Risk of Subjectivity: Different sides may justify excessive actions by inflating military necessity.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer aims to show that moral scrutiny of war must extend beyond reasons for fighting (jus ad bellum) to how wars are fought (jus in bello). This safeguards individual rights and preserves human dignity even amid conflict.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 8 stresses that fighting well—respecting proportionality, utility, and human rights—is a moral obligation in war. Walzer underscores that even just wars are unjust if fought with unnecessary cruelty or excess, thus linking conduct to the deeper moral purpose of limiting war’s inhumanity.

Chapter 9

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that protecting noncombatants is a fundamental rule of war. military necessity does not override the obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and harming noncombatants is only permissible under strict conditions involving double effect.

Central Questions

Why is noncombatant immunity central to the ethics of war?
How does the doctrine of double effect mediate military necessity and civilian protection?

Key Premises and Arguments

Status of Individuals:
- Civilians, as noncombatants, are immune from direct attack; harming them intentionally is a moral crime.
military necessity and Double Effect:
- Necessity does not justify targeting civilians. The principle of double effect permits unintended harm only if the action is proportionate and civilian harm is not the intended goal.
Historical Examples:
- Submarine warfare (the Laconia Affair), bombardments in Korea, and the bombing of occupied France show complex applications and violations of this principle.
Responsibility for civilian Lives:
- Armies must accept some increased risk to protect civilians, upholding the moral distinction even when insurgents blur lines by hiding among civilians.

Main Supporting Evidence

Case studies: The Laconia incident and air campaigns in WWII and Korea illustrate both respect and disregard for noncombatant immunity.
Philosophical analysis: Clarifies the doctrine of double effect and its limits.

Identified Assumptions

That clear moral distinctions between combatants and civilians exist and are enforceable.
That the intentionality behind attacks matters ethically—direct targeting of civilians is categorically wrong.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Application Complexity: In modern asymmetric wars, distinguishing combatants from civilians is extremely difficult.
Operational Burden: Expecting armies to take significant risks to protect enemy civilians may be practically challenging and controversial.

Larger Context/Aim

This chapter reinforces Walzer’s commitment to the moral structure of jus in bello, emphasizing that civilian protection is non-negotiable even under the pressures of military necessity.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 9 defends noncombatant immunity as a cornerstone of just war conduct. Walzer argues that military operations must rigorously avoid intentional harm to civilians, accepting additional risks when necessary, guided by the doctrine of double effect to balance military aims with civilian protection.

Chapter 10

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer examines the moral issues surrounding sieges and blockades, arguing that although these tactics inevitably harm civilians, they must still be constrained by ethical principles that minimize suffering and uphold the right to flee.

Central Questions

How can sieges and blockades, which primarily impact civilians, be morally justified?
What obligations do besieging forces have to protect or allow for civilian welfare?

Key Premises and Arguments

Coercion vs. Responsibility:
- Sieges and blockades coerce civilian populations to pressure their governments. This raises the question of moral responsibility for civilian suffering.
Right to Leave:
- Walzer argues that civilians must be allowed to exit besieged or blockaded areas to avoid collective punishment.
Historical Cases:
- The Siege of Jerusalem, Leningrad, and the British blockade of Germany are analyzed to illustrate moral failures and successes.
Doctrine of Double Effect:
- Even indirect strategies like blockades must meet standards of proportionality and non-intentionality toward civilian harm.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Examples: Sieges of Jerusalem and Leningrad show the devastating effects on civilians, while British naval blockades demonstrate large-scale impact beyond immediate battlefields.

Identified Assumptions

That combatants can and should distinguish between strategic aims and the welfare of civilians.
That allowing civilians to leave mitigates some moral blame for civilian suffering.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Enforcement Challenge: Ensuring safe passage for civilians during sieges is often impractical or strategically resisted.
Moral Gray Area: The inherent civilian toll of blockades and long sieges may always stand on ethically shaky ground, despite attempts to justify them under proportionality.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer situates sieges and blockades within the broader framework of jus in bello, showing that even these indirect tactics must be judged by their human costs and constrained to protect noncombatants.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 10 argues that while sieges and blockades are longstanding strategies of war, they require strict moral scrutiny. Walzer insists on upholding civilian rights, especially the right to leave, as critical checks against the otherwise overwhelming suffering such tactics impose.

Chapter 11

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer explores the moral complexities of guerrilla warfare, arguing that while guerrillas may have legitimate causes, their methods often blur the line between combatants and civilians, raising deep ethical challenges.

Central Questions

What rights and obligations do guerrilla fighters have under just war principles?
How should occupying forces and civilians respond to guerrilla tactics that merge civilian populations and fighters?

Key Premises and Arguments

Resistance to Occupation:
- Guerrilla war is often a form of legitimate resistance against foreign occupation or oppression.
Blurring combatant Status:
- Guerrillas frequently do not wear uniforms or separate themselves from civilian populations, complicating moral and legal distinctions.
Moral Responsibilities:
- Both guerrillas and occupying forces must strive to protect noncombatants despite asymmetric conditions.
Rights of civilian Supporters:
- Civilians aiding guerrillas become morally entangled, but wholesale reprisals or treating entire populations as combatants remains unjust.
Rules of Engagement:
- Walzer examines U.S. conduct in Vietnam as an example of how unclear engagement rules can harm civilians and escalate violence.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Examples: Partisan attacks in WWII, American rules of engagement in Vietnam, various national liberation movements that used guerrilla tactics.

Identified Assumptions

That popular support for guerrillas does not erase the moral obligation to distinguish between civilians and fighters.
That guerrillas bear some duty to minimize civilian exposure even if the terrain and nature of their struggle complicate it.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Practical Difficulty: In many guerrilla wars, maintaining clear distinctions is nearly impossible, challenging the theory’s practical relevance.
Moral Hazard: Guerrilla reliance on civilian cover can perversely incentivize putting civilians at risk.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer continues to apply jus in bello to complex modern conflicts, aiming to uphold civilian protection even in irregular wars where traditional battle lines disappear.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 11 addresses the ethical dilemmas of guerrilla warfare, stressing that while fighting occupation can be morally justified, guerrilla methods that entangle civilians create profound moral hazards. Walzer calls for both guerrillas and armies to respect civilian immunity as much as possible, despite the asymmetry.

Chapter 12

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that terrorism is fundamentally immoral because it deliberately targets civilians to achieve political aims, violating the core principle of noncombatant immunity.

Central Questions

What distinguishes terrorism morally from other forms of irregular warfare?
Can there ever be a justification for intentionally attacking civilians?

Key Premises and Arguments

Definition and Political Code:
- terrorism is the deliberate use of violence against innocent people for political objectives, breaking the central moral rule of war.
Historical Examples:
- Russian populists, the IRA, the Stern Gang, and Vietcong assassination campaigns illustrate diverse uses of terror tactics.
Moral Absolutism Against terrorism:
- Unlike guerrilla warfare, which can sometimes blur combatant lines, terrorism explicitly targets civilians, making it categorically wrong.
Jean-Paul Sartre and the Battle of Algiers:
- Walzer critiques romanticized defenses of terrorism as revolutionary necessity, arguing these ignore moral costs and corruption of cause.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Cases: Terrorist campaigns in Russia, Ireland, Palestine, Vietnam, and French Algeria.
Intellectual Critiques: Challenges to Sartre’s philosophical justifications of revolutionary terror.

Identified Assumptions

That intentional attacks on civilians are always unjustifiable, regardless of political objectives.
That movements embracing terrorism morally undermine their own legitimacy.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Gray Zones of Definition: The line between terrorism and guerrilla tactics is sometimes blurred, complicating rigid moral judgments.
Desperation Argument: Critics might argue extreme oppression leaves no other avenues, though Walzer rejects this as insufficient.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer extends jus in bello to condemn terrorism unequivocally, reinforcing the principle that the protection of civilians is non-negotiable in any moral theory of war.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 12 is Walzer’s firm denunciation of terrorism as an immoral strategy that directly targets noncombatants for political ends. He distinguishes it sharply from guerrilla war and critiques philosophical defenses, reinforcing civilian immunity as a bedrock of just war ethics.

Chapter 13

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that reprisals—otherwise illegal acts taken in response to an enemy’s prior wrongdoing—are morally ambiguous. They are sometimes necessary to enforce the rules of war but must be strictly limited to avoid undermining the very moral standards they aim to uphold.

Central Questions

Can immoral acts ever be justified as reprisals to enforce compliance with the laws of war?
How do reprisals balance deterrence with the risk of escalating immorality?

Key Premises and Arguments

Definition of Reprisals:
- Reprisals involve violating normal war rules to punish or pressure an adversary into compliance, distinct from acts of aggression.
Moral Justification:
- They may be the only way to enforce norms when formal institutions are absent, but they risk replicating the enemy’s wrongdoing.
Strict Criteria:
- Walzer stresses reprisals must be proportionate, aimed at restoring compliance, and cease once rules are honored again.
Examples and Risks:
- Discusses German reprisals in occupied Europe and Allied responses; shows how easily reprisals slide into routine brutality.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Illustrations: Nazi reprisals against civilians, contrasting with more restrained Allied approaches, highlight how easily reprisals can become atrocities.

Identified Assumptions

That reprisals can be morally distinguished from simple acts of revenge by their aim to enforce compliance with just war norms.
That combatants will respond rationally to such pressures.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Escalation Danger: Even well-intentioned reprisals can spiral into cycles of violence.
Moral Slippery Slope: Risk of normalizing violations under the guise of enforcement.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer situates reprisals within his broader effort to uphold moral limits in war, recognizing them as morally fraught tools that must be tightly constrained to avoid collapsing the ethical framework they’re meant to defend.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 13 examines the contentious ethics of reprisals, recognizing them as a problematic but sometimes necessary means to enforce war conventions. Walzer argues they demand strict proportionality and must always aim at re-establishing moral norms, lest they erode the very rules they seek to protect.

Chapter 14

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer explores how guerrilla warfare and terrorism overlap but argues they are morally distinct. Guerrillas can fight justly by targeting soldiers, whereas terrorists violate fundamental moral norms by deliberately attacking civilians.

Central Questions

How does guerrilla warfare differ morally from terrorism?
Can guerrilla movements remain within just war principles despite their irregular methods?

Key Premises and Arguments

Guerrillas vs. Terrorists:
- Guerrillas target enemy soldiers and can maintain moral legitimacy; terrorists intentionally target civilians.
Blurring Lines:
- In practice, guerrilla groups sometimes adopt terrorist tactics, losing moral standing by attacking noncombatants.
Support from Populations:
- Genuine guerrilla movements rely on voluntary popular support, distinguishing them from terrorist groups that intimidate civilians.
Historical Examples:
- References to national liberation struggles where guerrillas adhered to or violated moral norms.

Main Supporting Evidence

Case studies: Examples of movements that respected civilian immunity vs. those that did not, illustrating how tactics define moral legitimacy.

Identified Assumptions

That it is possible to clearly separate guerrilla fighters from terrorists based on their chosen tactics.
That guerrilla forces can realistically avoid civilian targets even in asymmetric conflicts.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Practical Challenge: Difficulties in asymmetric wars often pressure guerrillas toward terrorist methods.
Moral Overlap: The distinction between guerrillas and terrorists may collapse in complex conflicts where tactics shift.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer continues refining his theory of jus in bello by distinguishing acceptable irregular combat from actions that fundamentally violate just war principles, aiming to preserve moral limits even in unconventional warfare.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 14 clarifies the moral boundary between guerrilla war and terrorism. Walzer argues that guerrillas maintain legitimacy when they restrict attacks to military targets, but crossing into terrorism by targeting civilians undermines both their cause and the ethical structure of war.

Chapter 15

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that nuclear deterrence poses profound moral challenges because it rests on the threat of massive, indiscriminate violence against civilians, violating just war principles even if it arguably prevents war.

Central Questions

Is nuclear deterrence morally defensible given its reliance on threatening civilian populations?
How does nuclear strategy fit within or violate the principles of just war theory?

Key Premises and Arguments

Nature of Deterrence:
- Nuclear deterrence relies on threatening acts that would be deeply immoral to actually carry out, namely mass destruction of civilian centers.
Moral Paradox:
- It creates a paradox where we threaten what we must never do, leading to a morally unstable position.
Critique of Utilitarian Justifications:
- Arguments that deterrence prevents greater harm (total war) rely on balancing threats against hypothetical future violence, sidestepping direct moral constraints.
Historical Context:
- Cold War nuclear strategies of mutual assured destruction (MAD) exemplify this ethical dilemma.

Main Supporting Evidence

Cold War doctrines: The U.S.-Soviet standoff, extensive planning for nuclear strikes on cities, illustrating the deliberate targeting of noncombatants.

Identified Assumptions

That threatening to violate civilian immunity is inherently immoral regardless of intended outcomes.
That moral rules cannot be wholly overridden by calculations of utility or strategic stability.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Security Realism: Critics might argue that deterrence is the only practical means to prevent catastrophic war.
Hypocrisy Problem: Maintaining arsenals we claim we must never use can lead to dangerous complacency or accidental escalation.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer uses nuclear deterrence to probe the outer edges of just war reasoning, highlighting tensions between moral absolutes (protecting civilians) and strategic imperatives, urging continued moral scrutiny.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 15 critiques the moral foundations of nuclear deterrence, arguing that basing peace on threats of massive civilian slaughter fundamentally violates just war principles, even if it has helped prevent major conflicts. Walzer calls for confronting these contradictions rather than hiding behind strategic rhetoric.

Chapter 16

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that in rare cases of “supreme emergency,” moral rules of war may be overridden to prevent absolute catastrophe. However, this is an extreme exception that does not erase the moral costs or absolve responsibility.

Central Questions

Are there situations so dire that violating fundamental moral principles becomes permissible?
How should we judge actions taken under the justification of supreme emergency?

Key Premises and Arguments

Definition of Supreme Emergency:
- A situation where the survival of a political community—and with it, core human values—is imminently threatened.
Exception to Rules:
- In such emergencies, violating the rules of noncombatant immunity might be considered morally permissible to prevent utter disaster.
Historical Example:
- Britain’s fear of Nazi invasion in 1940 is presented as a case where extraordinary measures were contemplated to prevent a world dominated by totalitarianism.
Moral Tragedy:
- Even if justified, actions under supreme emergency remain tragic and morally stained; actors still bear responsibility.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Analysis: British leaders’ contemplation of bombing German cities as a last resort to halt Nazi victory.

Identified Assumptions

That the preservation of certain political communities is crucial for upholding broader moral values.
That supreme emergencies are exceedingly rare and must be narrowly defined.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Risk of Abuse: States may exaggerate threats to justify atrocities.
Erosion of Norms: Once exceptions are made, it becomes harder to maintain moral rules in future conflicts.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer uses this concept to probe the limits of just war theory, stressing that even in supreme emergency, moral costs persist and must be openly acknowledged.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 16 explores the concept of supreme emergency, arguing that extreme threats may sometimes justify breaches of wartime morality. However, Walzer cautions that such acts remain deeply tragic and must not be sanitized, preserving the gravity of moral judgment even in dire circumstances.

Chapter 17

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that individual soldiers and commanders bear moral responsibility for war crimes. Obeying orders does not absolve them of accountability for violating the rules of war.

Central Questions

Who is responsible for war crimes: soldiers following orders, their officers, or both?
How do principles of command and individual agency intersect in moral judgment?

Key Premises and Arguments

Personal Responsibility:
- Soldiers cannot hide behind the defense of merely following orders when committing atrocities.
Role of Officers:
- Commanders have heightened moral responsibility because they shape the conduct of troops and set ethical standards.
The Nuremberg Standard:
- Cites post-WWII trials to argue that there is a legal and moral expectation for individuals to refuse unlawful orders.
Moral Education:
- Armies must instill moral reasoning in soldiers so they recognize when orders violate fundamental rules.

Main Supporting Evidence

Historical Precedents: Nuremberg Trials and other war crime tribunals establish the principle of individual accountability.
Examples of Disobedience: Cases where soldiers refused illegal orders highlight moral agency.

Identified Assumptions

That individuals can discern unlawful orders and have the capacity to resist them.
That military structures allow space for conscientious refusal.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Pressure and Fear: Soldiers often act under extreme duress, complicating expectations of disobedience.
Institutional Culture: May underestimate how deeply obedience is ingrained, making moral resistance rare.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer uses this discussion to reinforce that moral responsibility in war is personal as well as institutional, ensuring that ethical rules are not abstract but tied to human decisions.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 17 examines war crimes, emphasizing that both soldiers and officers are morally accountable for atrocities. Walzer rejects excuses based on obedience, arguing for individual responsibility grounded in universal moral norms.

Chapter 18

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that aggression is the supreme crime in international relations because it encompasses and enables all other war crimes, undermining the rights of political communities and individuals.

Central Questions

Why is aggression considered the primary international crime?
How does aggression set the stage for further moral violations in war?

Key Premises and Arguments

aggression Violates sovereignty:
- Invading or attacking another state breaches the fundamental rights of political communities to self-determination.
Enabler of Other Crimes:
- Aggressive war leads to occupation, repression, and atrocities, making it the foundational wrong from which other violations flow.
Moral Condemnation:
- Aggressors lose the moral standing to complain about reprisals or defensive measures taken against them.
Historical Reinforcement:
- Post-WWII international law (Nuremberg Charter) identified aggression as the “supreme international crime.”

Main Supporting Evidence

Nuremberg Trials: Established the precedent that leaders who start aggressive wars bear ultimate responsibility for all ensuing crimes.
Philosophical Reasoning: Draws parallels to individual assaults, emphasizing that initial unjust force invites broader harm.

Identified Assumptions

That state sovereignty and the rights of political communities are morally analogous to individual rights.
That preventing aggression is essential to maintaining an international moral order.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Borderline Cases: Not all uses of force are clearly aggressive; humanitarian interventions or preventive actions complicate the analysis.
State Focus: May inadequately address internal oppression or civil conflicts that also warrant moral concern.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer situates aggression as the key starting point for evaluating the justice of wars, reinforcing his framework that just war theory must first restrain when wars begin to prevent cascading moral disasters.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 18 stresses that aggression is the gravest crime in international affairs because it violates sovereignty and opens the door to further atrocities. Walzer underscores that stopping aggression is vital to upholding a moral global order.

Chapter 19

Identified Thesis (Restated Simply)

Walzer argues that moral responsibility continues after wars end, requiring accountability for wrongs committed and efforts toward restitution and reconciliation to rebuild a just peace.

Central Questions

What moral obligations do victors and defeated parties have after war concludes?
How should postwar justice address past wrongs without perpetuating conflict?

Key Premises and Arguments

Postwar Justice:
- Victorious states must balance punishment and reconciliation, holding leaders accountable while enabling societies to recover.
Responsibility for Atrocities:
- Individuals and leaders who committed war crimes should face trial to affirm moral standards.
Reparations and Reconstruction:
- Reparations may be necessary but must not be so harsh as to breed future resentment and instability.
Example of Germany:
- Post-WWII trials and reconstruction efforts illustrate attempts to combine accountability with rebuilding.

Main Supporting Evidence

Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials: Demonstrated efforts to establish moral and legal responsibility.
Historical Lessons: Harsh terms after WWI contrasted with more balanced policies after WWII, influencing future peace.

Identified Assumptions

That justice served after war helps deter future crimes and reestablish moral norms.
That societies can be rebuilt in ways that reduce the chance of renewed aggression.

Potential Weaknesses/Critique Points

Victors’ Justice: Trials and reparations risk appearing as one-sided impositions, undermining legitimacy.
Reintegration Challenges: Finding the right balance between punishment and forgiveness is politically and morally fraught.

Larger Context/Aim

Walzer broadens just war theory to include jus post bellum, emphasizing that how wars end and how societies are treated afterward are critical to sustaining a moral international order.

Summary of Chapter

Chapter 19 argues that ethical obligations do not stop when wars end. Walzer highlights the importance of holding wrongdoers accountable, fostering reconciliation, and rebuilding societies to secure a more just and stable peace.

☠️ Agree, Disagree, or Suspend

We will see from the discussion, but the author is way too into relativism for me.

🗂 Notable Quotes & Thoughts

“The argument about war is not reducible to strategy, politics, or law. It is an argument about justice.”

— Michael Walzer, Chapter 1: Against ‘Realism’

“War is always a crime. It may sometimes be a necessary crime, but it is still a crime.”

— Michael Walzer, Chapter 2: The Crime of War

“The rights of individuals are not lost in war; they are not suspended. Even in war, morality is not silent.”

— Michael Walzer, Chapter 3: The Rules of War

“The moral reality of war is not fixed by the actual activities of soldiers but by the opinions of mankind.”

— Michael Walzer, Chapter 4: Law and Order in International Society

“In times of supreme emergency, moral rules may be overridden—but the stain of the act remains.”

— Michael Walzer, Chapter 16: Supreme Emergency