Just war theory exists to stop armies and countries from using armed force without good cause. But how can we judge whether a war is just? In this original book, John W. Lango takes some distinctive approaches to the ethics of armed conflict. DT A revisionist approach that involves generalising traditional just war principles, so that they are applicable by all sorts of responsible agents to all forms of armed conflict DT A cosmopolitan approach that features the Security Council DT A preventive approach that emphasises alternatives to armed force, including negotiation, nonviolent action and peacekeeping missions DT A human rights approach that encompasses not only armed humanitarian intervention but also armed invasion, armed revolution and all other forms of armed conflict Lango shows how these can be applied to all forms of armed conflict, however large or small: from interstate wars to UN peacekeeping missions, and from civil wars counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations.

An analysis of medical ethics during war and the inherent conflict between the principles of bioethics and the morally legitimate but competing demands of military necessity.

"The goal of military medicine is to conserve the fighting force necessary to prosecute just wars. Just wars are defensive or humanitarian. A defensive war protects one's people or nation. A humanitarian war rescues a foreign, persecuted people or nation from grave human rights abuse. To provide medical care during armed conflict, military medical ethics supplements civilian medical ethics with two principles: military-medical necessity and broad beneficence. Military-medical necessity designates the medical means required to pursue national self-defense or humanitarian intervention. While clinical-medical necessity directs care to satisfy urgent medical needs, military-medical necessity utilizes medical care to satisfy the just aims of war. Military medicine may therefore attend the lightly wounded before the critically wounded or use medical care to win hearts and minds. The underlying principle is broad, not narrow, beneficence. The latter addresses private interests, while broad beneficence responds to the collective welfare of the political community"--

This book assesses the ethical implications of using armed unmanned aerial vehicles (‘hunter-killer drones’) in contemporary conflicts. The American way of war is trending away from the heroic and towards the post-heroic, driven by a political preference for air-powered management of strategic risks and the reduction of physical risk to US personnel. The recent use of drones in the War on Terror has demonstrated the power of this technology to transcend time and space, but there has been relatively little debate in the United States and elsewhere over the embrace of what might be regarded as politically desirable and yet morally worrisome: risk-free killing. Arguably, the absence of a relationship of mutual risk between putative combatants poses a fundamental challenge to the status of war as something morally distinguishable from other forms of violence, and it also undermines the professional virtue of the warrior as a courageous risk-taker. This book considers the use of armed drones in the light of ethical principles that are intended to guard against unjust increases in the incidence and lethality of armed conflict. The evidence and arguments presented indicate that, in some respects, the use of armed drones is to be welcomed as an ethically superior mode of warfare. Over time, however, their continued and increased use is likely to generate more challenges than solutions, and perhaps do more harm than good. This book will be of much interest to students of the ethics of war, airpower, counter-terrorism, strategic studies and security studies in general.

As space develops as a potential war fighting domain, so does the need to have ethical scrutiny. Since the 1960s there have been core space treaties that together with national laws, provide a clear framework for both military and civilian space activities, yet ethical questions still exist around space warfare. Is it appropriate to respond kinetically on earth to a threat in space? Does just war theory apply in space and does the remoteness of space lower or raise the threshold for armed conflicts? Will the creation of new space forces start a space arms race? New combat environments also create a number of new challenges, including whether future war in space will be conducted by robots or space marines, and how the dual-use nature of satellites will impact on their permissibility as targets in any future conflict. As technologies become more widespread, space may be threatened by the likes of non-state groups and rogue states, leading to a need to inhibit their movement in space. In space, differences are magnified; resources are especially scarce, risks are multiplied, and specialized medical care is a world away. The physical and psychological distance between combatants in modern warfare applies also to space and the impacts of remote warfare need to be considered including the potential for moral injury and psychological trauma. With greater military power comes greater responsibility and this responsibility is carried out at the end of a chain of decisions and technologies. This book's relevancy will not be lost on students at service academies and staff colleges in preparing them for the task of emphasizing ethical responsibility in space to those whom they will lead in the future.

A comprehensive and case-driven account of the core ethical principles of the "Profession of Arms," together with a description of the rigorous ethical demands and moral dilemmas these principles impose upon individuals, both in and beyond combat. A thorough but readable, engaging account addressed both to military personnel and the wider public.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have focused new attention on a perennial problem: how to end wars well. What ethical considerations should guide war’s settlement and its aftermath? In cases of protracted conflicts, recurring war, failed or failing states, or genocide and war crimes, is there a framework for establishing an enduring peace that is pragmatic and moral? Ethics Beyond War’s End provides answers to these questions from the just war tradition. Just war thinking engages the difficult decisions of going to war and how war is fought. But from this point forward just war theory must also take into account what happens after war ends, and the critical issues that follow: establishing an enduring order, employing political forms of justice, and cultivating collective forms of conciliation. Top thinkers in the field—including Michael Walzer, Jean Bethke Elshtain, James Turner Johnson, and Brian Orend—offer powerful contributions to our understanding of the vital issues associated with late- and post conflict in tough, real-world scenarios that range from the US Civil War to contemporary quagmires in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Congo.