Realism in Just War Thinking

What is it about?

Just war thinking and realism are commonly presumed to be in opposition. If realists are seen as war-mongering pragmatists, just war thinkers are seen as naïve at best and essentially pacifistic at worst. Just war thought is imagined as speaking truth to power – forcing realist decision-makers to abide by moral limits governing the ends and means of the use of force. This over-simplification is not only wrong, but dangerous. Casting just war thought as the alternative to realism makes just war thinking out to be what it is not – and cannot – be: a mechanism for avoiding war. A careful examination of the evolution of just war thinking in the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions shows that just war thought is no stranger to pragmatic politics. From its origins, just war thought has not aimed to curtail violence, but rather to shape the morally imaginable uses of force, deeming some of them necessary and even obligatory.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

It challenges assumptions many just war thinkers hold about their own tradition and appeals to realist international relations scholars who are concerned with the ethical implications of their views. It serves as a timely reminder that strategic wisdom and ethical wisdom often go hand in hand.