Should the Changing Character of War Affect Our Theories of War?

War has changed so much that it barely resembles the paradigmatic cases of armed conflict that just war theories and international humanitarian law seemed to have had in mind even a few decades ago. The changing character of war includes not only the use of new technology such as drones, but probably more problematically the changing temporal and spatial scope of war and the changing character of actors in war. These changes give rise to worries about what counts as war and thus what norms to use in evaluating a particular conflict. In this paper, I develop an argument that the changing character of war gives us reasons to take reductionist revisions of just war theory seriously. By reductionist theories of war I mean those revisions within the just war tradition that suggest that we can use ordinary peacetime interpersonal analyses of moral responsibility and liability to harm to decide what justice requires in times of war.     

A Crisis in the Subjectivity of the Analyst: The Trauma of Morality

This paper explores the dilemmas that arise when treatment is offered in circumstances when spiritual and ethical survival comes into conflict with physical survival and material well-being. Through an exploration of the author's experience in South Africa's war of liberation, this conflict is explicated. Although these experiences are now historical, it is argued that they are pertinent at the current time as the West, following 9/11, finds itself encouraged to think in terms of war, as notions of both a war against the West and a war against terrorism have become part of many public discourses. Questions that may arise for us as relational analysts and as individuals as a result of this are flagged, and although no easy answers are proposed, the importance of this exploration is highlighted.     

Truce thinking and just war theory

In his book, A Theory of Truces, Nir Eisikovits offers a perceptive and timely ethics of truces based on the claim that we need to reject the ‘false dichotomy between the ideas of war and peace’ underpinning much current thought about conflict and conflict resolution. In this article, I concur that truces and ‘truce thinking’ should be a focus of concern for any political theory wishing to address the realities of war. However, Eisikovits’s account, to be convincing, requires engagement with a tradition of thought figuring only marginally in his reflections on truces, that is, just war theory. I argue this for three reasons. Without incorporation of the just war principles that should inform the decisions to enter conflict, to maintain conflict, and to cease conflict, any theory of truces will be, first, normatively inadequate, failing to provide us with requisite direction, and, second, open to the charge of permitting intolerable injustices, a charge Eisikovits wishes to avoid. Third, engagement with just war theory is important for arriving at a nuanced understanding of peacemaking, one which grants truces their place in our deliberations and spurns simplistic ‘war versus peace’ binaries whilst keeping more ambitious ideals of peace firmly in sight.     

Internationalizing the counseling psychology curriculum: toward new values,competencies, and directions

The changing world in which we now live requires that counseling psychology alter its training curriculum assumptions, content, and methods to prepare students and faculty for meeting the challenges of life in the global community. Global problems such as poverty, migration, overpopulation, international war and violence, rapid urbanization, and cultural disintegration are posing new challenges for service professions that are no longer suited to ethnocentric values, content, and interventions. Adjustment syndromes such as alienation, culture shock, acculturation, identity conflict and confusion, and migration stress are now emerging as major problems for counselors in schools, colleges, industry, clinics and private practice. New competencies are needed. The present article offers 50 different ways to assist in the internationalization of the counseling curriculum, with specific recommendations for professional psychological associations and department of psychology curriculum content and extra-curricular activities, and universities. The article calls upon counseling psychologists around the world to help create a new professional and global consciousness that can advance our field by addressing the problems we face and restoring dignity to those we serve through the provision of more informed and culturally sensitive services.     

On the Importance of Attribution Theory in Political Psychology

Attribution theory, which was initially applied to the study of academic achievement, has generated a large amount of research in psychology. Judgments of causal responsibility, an important facet of attributions, have since been studied in a variety of other contexts, revealing that they pervade our understanding of the social world. The present paper considers the many ways in which causal judgments, particularly attributions of responsibility, influence political life. Examining scholarship primarily from the fields of psychology, political science, and sociology, I discuss how perceptions of responsibility are linked to ideology and how they influence policy attitudes (welfare, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights) and perceptions of international conflict (beliefs about terrorism and war). An argument is made for increased communication among fields and a more systematic application of attributional models to the study of political judgments.     

Children in war and its aftermath: mental health issues in the development of international law

Children now experience war as they never have in the past. This article presents clinical impressions of children from war zones and suggests interventions that might ameliorate the horrors of war for some of these children. It also describes the evolving framework in international law (i.e., the United Nations) that provides a context for implementing some of these interventions and for insulating children from some of the devastating effects of war.     

Turning psychology against militarism

This paper draws on material, mostly from outside psychology, which illustrates the deep rootedness of militarisation in modern culture and the numerous ways in which it permeates civic society. Children, boys especially, learn to value armed conflict. War games are now more realistic, and the distinction between gaming and military training has become blurred. War and deadly weapons are portrayed in unrealistic ways that hide their actual effects. Just war theory, widely subscribed to, justifies armed conflict by proposing that under certain conditions, war can be just with moral rules that apply to the fighting. Many psychologists have worked for the military in one way or another, implicitly or explicitly promoting militarism, and the changing nature of war and armaments is providing further temptations for psychologists to do so. Psychology has been ambivalent about militarism. Peace psychology has not taken an unambiguous position on it, often speaking disparagingly of the absence of war in the absence of social justice, referring to it as “negative peace.” Feminists, often very clear in their opposition to militarism, have sometimes advocated for women to have greater acceptance in the armed forces. The paper concludes by arguing for a more clearly identified Psychology Against Militarism. Community psychology should take a lead in advocating for Psychology Against Militarism because militarism is a good example of how the exercise of power, wreaking widespread harm on us all but especially on those who are already relatively powerless, is collectively legitimised, and hence how we become complicit in supporting it.     

Jus interruptus bellum: the ethics of truce-making

With his new book, A Theory of Truces, Nir Eisikovits has succeed in producing the most comprehensive and insightful book to exist on the nature and morality of truces during international military conflict. In it he plausibly argues that thought about such conflict should avoid binary terms such as long-lasting peace and all-out war, and instead must readily acknowledge conditions ‘in between’ them, such as cease-fires and agreements to limit belligerence to certain times. In this critical notice of Eisikovits’ book, I have two major aims, in light of the fact that in it he does not systematically engage with the contemporary literature on and positions in just war theory. One aim is to situate Eisikovits’ analysis of truces in that context, and to contend that he has implicitly founded a new field that would be aptly labelled jus interruptus bellum as distinct from jus in bello and jus ex bello. Another is to build on Eisikovits’ ethical appraisal of truces, by considering what principles of just war theory entail for them.     

The Impact of Value Similarity and Power on the Perception of Threat

Threat perception is a powerful tool in international and intergroup conflict. Realists in international relations argue that the perception of threat in intergroup conflict is a function of power asymmetries between groups. In contrast, social constructivists in international relations suggest that a shared sense of identity or similarity can reduce, and in some cases eliminate, perceptions of intergroup threat. Consequently, threat perception might be influenced by both the value similarities and the power asymmetries between the ingroup and the outgroup. In this article, we present an attempt to test empirically how individuals evaluate the similarity of cultural and political values compared with another nation (outgroup) and assess its implications for cooperation among states in the international system. The results of two experiments demonstrate that both power and perceived value similarity play an important role in threat perception among states and discuss implications for future research.     

Arms races and the opportunity for peace

We model the evolution of international conflict as a game of sequential decisions and show that arms races are neither necessary nor sufficient for peace or war. Peaceful intentions are not adequate to insure peace, even when both rivals wish to avoid violence. Peaceful intentions together with complete information are sufficient for peace. A preference for forcefully pursuing foreign policy goals also is not sufficient to preclude the peaceful resolution of disputes, and this is true even if there is complete information. In some circumstances, the absence of an arms race can precipitate violence, even giving the military advantage to a nation that unilaterally stopped getting ready for a war it would initiate. Finally, we also show that empirical research is likely to be biased in favor of the hypothesis that deterrence leads to peace. Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.Vegetius,Artes Latinae     

The Virtue of Justice and War

There has been a recent revival of interest in the medieval just war theory. But what is the virtue of justice needed to make war just? War is a complex and protracted activity. It is argued that a variety of virtues of justice, as well as a variety of virtues are required to guide the application of the use of force. Although it is mistaken to regard war as punishment, punitive justice—bringing to account those guilty of initiating an unjust war or of war crimes in its conduct— has an important role to play after conflict to restore the wrongs of war and help establish a just peace. Justice as fairness is needed to guide the distribution of resources and so reduce the grounds for war. Protective justice—protecting a community or innocents from harmful attack—helps define what constitutes a just cause for war and so constrains the occasions for war. The just principles set out the criteria to be met if war is to be morally permissible. In practice, this challenging demand requires that political leaders and military at all levels learn and exercise the virtues, particularly the cardinal virtues of justice, courage, self-control and practical wisdom. If we are to make war just and to make only just war, we need justice understood in its broadest sense. Such justice, as Aristotle noted, “is not a part but the whole of virtue.”     

The ideas of 1914

Battles of the First World War were accompanied by what was the first full-scale war of words in European history. It was aimed at influencing the public opinion abroad as well as at mobilizing the population at home. Leading intellectuals, including famous scholars, participated in propaganda campaigns waged by the belligerent nations. This text focuses on the discussions between philosophers involved in the international conflict.     

Paving the road to war with group membership, appraisal antecedents, and anger

This study uses appraisal theory, functionalist approach to emotions, and recent theory on group emotions as a basic framework to model the genesis of supporting military action. During the year after the events of 9/11, 588 college students participated in a series of four studies that assessed religious affiliation, appraisal antecedents, anger response to viewing photographs of the 9/11 attack, and support for military action. Structural equation modeling demonstrated that the relation between support for the war and attitudes toward terrorism and relevance could be explained adequately by a model in which anger mediated the effects of attitudes and relevance on support. Attitudes toward terrorism were further identified as mediators that could explain the group effect by Christians. The result was not only generalizable across the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in terms of how consent for war manifests itself--outright calls for bloodshed versus more subtle, politically loaded, posturing (e.g. entreaties to "support our troops").     

What's So Bad About Killer Robots?

Robotic warfare has now become a real prospect. One issue that has generated heated debate concerns the development of ‘Killer Robots’. These are weapons that, once programmed, are capable of finding and engaging a target without supervision by a human operator. From a conceptual perspective, the debate on Killer Robots has been rather confused, not least because it is unclear how central elements of these weapons can be defined. Offering a precise take on the relevant conceptual issues, the article contends that Killer Robots are best seen as executors of targeting decisions made by their human programmers. However, from a normative perspective, the execution of targeting decisions by Killer Robots should worry us. The article argues that what is morally bad about Killer Robots is that they replace human agency in warfare with artificial agency, a development which should be resisted. Finally, the article contends that the issue of agency points to a wider problem in just war theory, namely the role of moral rights in our normative reasoning on armed conflict.     

The Impact of Group Norms and Generalization of Risks across Groups on Judgments of War Behavior

This paper investigates the effects of war experiences across three different levels (individuals, groups, and contexts) on moral judgments related to violations of humanitarian norms. Competing hypotheses derived from different theoretical perspectives are empirically evaluated. Social psychological studies of war traditionally highlight a reversal of morality and group norms justifying violence against outgroups. Rationalistic models insist on the importance of realistic costs on the choice of individuals. As a complement to these traditions, we suggest that situations in which risks are generalized across group boundaries tend to provoke a strengthening of principles, such as humanitarian norms, that enable the protection of the material and symbolic integrity of a community. Multilevel analyses of the international People on War survey dataset (N = 8,121) show that support for the ingroup's struggle, at both individual and group levels, predicts stronger justification of violence. Simultaneously, at the context level, generalization of war‐related risks predicts stronger condemnation of violations of humanitarian principles. These findings are consistent with a collective vulnerability model and, only in part, with the intractable conflict model.     

Climate Change is Unjust War: Geoengineering and the Rising Tides of War

Climate change is undeniably a global problem, but the situation is especially dire for countries whose territory is comprised entirely or primarily of low‐lying land. While geoengineering might offer an opportunity to protect these states, international consensus on the particulars of any geoengineering proposal seems unlikely. To consider the moral complexities created by unilateral deployment of geoengineering technologies, we turn to a moral convention with a rich history of assessing interference in the sovereign affairs of foreign states: the just war tradition. We argue that the just war framework demonstrates that, for these nations, geoengineering offers a justified form of self‐defense from an unwarranted, albeit unintentional, aggression. This startling result places our own carbon‐emitting activities in a stark new light: in perpetrating climate change, we are, in fact, waging war on the most vulnerable.     

Healing the wounds of war and more: an integrative approach to peace—the work of Adam Curle and others with Mir i dobro in Županja,Croatia

Adam Curle, the founder of the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford, is both an academic and an international peacemaker, active in many countries, including Croatia. Curle's approach to the psychological aspects of conflict and peacemaking were implemented in a number of projects which were founded or inspired by him in Croatia following the 1991–1995 war. This paper examines the practical implications of Curle's approach as evidenced in the Mir i dobro project in ?upanja, taking into consideration some of the current debates concerning the treatment of psychological trauma, including validity of the diagnosis of PTSD and the use of so-called ‘Western therapeutic approaches’ for the treatment of psychological trauma in other cultures.     

Cosmopolitan Justice and Criminal States

Cécile Fabre's monumental work Cosmopolitan Peace offers a thorough investigation of the responsibilities that agents incur through their involvement in armed conflict. However, her analysis fails to acknowledge the central role that states play in initiating and orchestrating acts of war. I argue that states are corporate moral agents, who are morally responsible for their own wrongdoings during an unjust war, and that this argument is compatible with Fabre's cosmopolitan premises. I then suggest that a systematic account of criminal liability in the aftermath of a war should acknowledge the role that states play in orchestrating wars and committing war crimes.     

Trauma awareness and preparedness: Their influence on posttraumatic stress disorder development related to armed conflict experience

This study examined influences of trauma awareness and preparedness on the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in civilian and military personnel with exposure to the civil war. Participants were 302 people with exposure to civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (civilians = 68%; females = 47%; age range = 16 to 76 years old, SD = 13.58 years). Participants completed the Posttraumatic Checklist Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Traumatic Events List. The data were analysed to predict PTSD development from trauma awareness and preparedness, taking exposure to multiple traumas into account as a risk factor. Findings suggest that trauma awareness and preparedness play an important role among military personnel in moderating the risk of developing PTSD, more so than among the civilian population. Mental health professionals working with civil war survivors should seek to explore trauma awareness and preparedness as resources for minimising risk for PTSD in armed conflict situations.