Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations

The term Demi-monde, meaning “half-world,” originated in 19th-century France. Its primary meaning is the realm of society populated by disreputable women. Walzer uses the term to refer to the period between wartime and peacetime. In such times, there can be border strife and periods of insurgency. Walzer explains that such times are commonplace and appropriate for peacetime reprisals.

Australian political theorist Headley Bull (1932-1985) coined the term domestic analogy. The domestic analogy assumes that a state operates like a society of individuals: Walzer notes its importance to the theory of aggression because any major international conflict threatens the world order, and there is no international police force. The domestic analogy defines as aggression any use of or imminent threat of force of one state against another (62). Walzer maintains that this analogy is limited in its insights because war is a unique type of conflict.

The principle of double effect provides guidelines for determining when a well-intentioned act is morally permissible even though it will entail serious collateral damage. For example, it allows the military to kill noncombatants when the act is a legitimate act of war, the direct effect is morally acceptable, the intention of the actor is good and not evil, and the good effect sufficiently compensates for the evil (153). Walzer is critical of this principle, arguing that it too easily justifies the killing of noncombatants.

Walzer seeks to revise the principle of double effect with a double intention requirement. Double intention requires that the military aims narrowly at the good or acceptable effect and seeks to minimize the evil, accepting costs and risks to itself in so doing (156). This rule balances a utilitarian approach that weighs an effect’s proportionality of good and evil with human rights considerations.

Jus ad bellum refers to the justice of war. It requires judgment about the causes of a war and the identification of an aggressor and a defender: The aggressors are those fighting an unjust war. However, the soldiers on both sides of the conflict have equal rights to fight and must adhere to just forms of fighting. 

Jus in bello refers to justice in war. It requires that all soldiers adhere to the war convention. In general, these rules restrict warfare to combatants. While the rules require judgment in application, they create morally enforceable standards.

Prisoners of war are recognized in the war convention. If soldiers surrender, they are entitled to safe confinement for the duration of the war, and they agree to stop fighting. Walzer analyzes cases where prisoners of war have been shot as a reprisal, among others. Walzer argues for conformity to the agreement of surrender, with soldiers’ lives spared in return for their promise not to fight.

Realism is a paradigm in international relations that Walzer rejects. Realism considers only a state’s interests, not values or human rights, in decision making. As a result, it places no constraints on wartime behavior.

Part of the war convention, reprisals are a response to wrongdoing. If undertaken in response to the enemy’s crime, they allow for actions otherwise considered criminal. Walzer argues that this doctrine is abused and that reprisals should be prohibited from targeting civilians and innocents and be proportional to the previous act.

Terrorism randomly targets innocent civilians to destroy an enemy’s morale. Walzer traces how terrorism evolved to this state: Previously, terrorists attacked officials and political agents, not civilians. Walzer condemns the targeting of random civilians completely.

Utilitarianism assumes that policies should produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Walzer allows for utilitarian considerations in war in the case of emergencies but grounds his theory in human rights. Walzer worries that a purely utilitarian calculus applied to wartime would permit too many civilian casualties. However, he allows for the weighing of good and evil consequences, provided that positive steps have been taken to protect human rights.

War is a “legal condition which equally permits two or more groups to carry on a conflict by armed force” (41). Walzer repeatedly emphasizes the equal rights and responsibilities of soldiers on all sides of a conflict.