“Hands up Who Wants to Die?”: Primoratz on Responsibility and Civilian Immunity in Wartime

The question of the morality of war is something of an embarrassment to liberal political thinkers. A philosophical tradition which aspires to found its preferred institutions in respect for individual autonomy, contract, and voluntary association, is naturally confronted by a phenomenon that is almost exclusively explained and justified in the language of States, force and territory. But the apparent difficulties involved in providing a convincing account of nature and ethics of war in terms of relations between individuals has not prevented liberal theorists from attempting this task. This paper examines a recent attempt by Igor Primoratz to sketch out the implications of a consistent liberalism for just war doctrine and, in particular, as regards the question of who may be a legitimate target of attack in wartime. Primoratz’s paper itself is a critique of Michael Waltzer’s authoritative exposition of just war theory for failing to be sufficiently and consistently liberal. The debate between these two authors is a productive site for investigating the potential and limitations of liberal theories of just war.     

The state,human rights and the ethics of war termination: what should a just peace look like? A critical appraisal

The concept of jus post bellum deals with moral considerations in the aftermath of conflict and is concerned with how a just peace should look like. This paper analyses the concept of jus post bellum as developed by contemporary Just War theorists. Its aim is to provide a critical perspective on the proposed substantial scope of this concept. In other words, it will consider the question: in restoring peace after war, is it justified for just combatants to change the political structure of a defeated aggressor? The piece will be divided into two main parts. First, through a review of the literature, I define the current state of the art on jus post bellum thinking in relation to a number of key aspects of this concept. What does241 it entail? Which principles is it made of? What sort of activities do just war theorists speak about when they speak of creating a just peace? Second, I focus on the principle of ‘political rehabilitation’ of the defeated state: is it permissible? Under what circumstances? While considering these questions and authors' views on this matter, the paper will provide a critical reappraisal of the current debate on the justifiability of political reconstruction in post-conflict states.     

A comparison of the ecclesiological doctrine of Vatican II with Faith and Order's convergence text The Church: Towards a Common Vision

Faith and Order's important new convergence text on ecclesiology was published in 2013, 50 years after the discussions in 1963, at the second session of Vatican II, which produced the council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, the following year. After acknowledging some of the pitfalls in comparing a conciliar teaching with an ecumenical convergence text, this article summarises the content of the new ecumenical text on ecclesiology, indicates points of agreement with Vatican II's teaching and proposes that The Church: Towards a Common Vision might be seen as reflecting a hierarchy of ecclesiological truths which provides a promising framework for seeking greater agreement about still divisive issues.     

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.     

Missionary Institutes in the wake of the Second Vatican Council: the case of the Missionaries of Africa

It is legitimate to imagine that the Church would have been different had it not been for the courage and insight of Pope John XXIII, who convened the Second Ecumenical Council, completed after him by Pope Paul VI. It initiated extensive reform in the Catholic Church, both in the way she understands herself and as she sees her presence and interaction with the (secular) world. This Ecumenical Council also invited Religious Congregations and Institutes of Consecrated Apostolic Life to engage in a process of renewal (aggiornamento) that would bring them also into line with the new theology of the Second Vatican Council. The Missionaries of Africa, under the leadership of Fr Léo Volker, undertook this thorough renewal before, during and after the 1967 General Chapter. This article explores how aggiornamento changed our Missionary Family and how it impacted on the local churches in Africa which we served.     

分配公平与程序公平对工作倦怠的影响

根据3家企业294份调查问卷的结果对工作倦怠量表MBI-GS进行了修订。然后,利用修订的MBI-GS和组织公平量表在6家企业进行了调查,524份有效问卷的调查进一步验证了MBI-GS的构想效度和信度;t检验和方差分析结果表明,人口统计学变量会影响组织公平和工作倦怠;分层回归的结果发现,在控制了人口统计学变量后,组织公平对工作倦怠具有较强的预测作用;进一步的优势分析表明,预测情绪衰竭时,分配公平相对来说更重要,贡献了已解释方差的65.91%;预测玩世不恭时,程序公平相对来说更重要,贡献了已解释方差的56.07%     

Aquinas and Luther on War and Peace: Sovereign Authority and the Use of Armed Force

Recent just war thought has tended to prioritize just cause among the moral criteria to be satisfied for resort to armed force, reducing the requirement of sovereign authority to a secondary, supporting role: such authority is to act in response to the establishment of just cause. By contrast, Aquinas and Luther, two benchmark figures in the development of Christian thought on just war, unambiguously gave priority to the requirement of sovereign authority as instituted by God to carry out the responsibilities of ensuring a just and peaceful order in the world. On this conception it is the sovereign, in deciding whether to resort to armed force, who must make sure to satisfy the other moral requirements of the jus ad bellum . This paper examines Aquinas and Luther on sovereign authority for use of armed force. Recapturing the importance of this conception is important both for the proper understanding of just war tradition and for working out its implications for such contemporary issues as humanitarian intervention and "regime change."     

Homo Hierarchicus and ecclesial order

Abstract

To argue that the concept of hierarchy is a profoundly theological concept is peculiarly difficult at the present time in which there is a general assumption that all hierarchies are hierarchies of power, intrinsically oppressive, and incompatible with human freedom. Consequently there is a deep-seated suspicion of the notion whenever it is invoked – not least in the context of church ‘order’. Such a suspicion would have been inexplicable to those writers from whom we gain our earliest knowledge of the Christian Church. Though we cannot, nor should we try to, recreate the conditions of earlier ages in which the concept was understood with a richness and depth that are lacking in our own age, it is vital to expose the contemporary misuse and degradation of the concept and see that, in the life of the Church, the concept of hierarchy is not intended to be an articulation of power, but an eschatological expression of order. The recognition of the inhuman abuse of the concept down the ages should not blind us to the truth that its purpose is to act sacramentally as a sign of the heavenly kingdom.     

The Ethics of Killing in War

This paper argues that certain central tenets of the traditional theory of the just war cannot be correct. It then advances an alternative account grounded in the same considerations of justice that govern self-defense at the individual level. The implications of this account are unorthodox. It implies that, with few exceptions, combatants who fight for an unjust cause act impermissibly when they attack enemy combatants, and that combatants who fight in a just war may, in certain circumstances, legitimately target noncombatants who bear a significant degree of moral responsibility for a wrong, when the prevention or rectification of that wrong constitutes a just cause for war.

The Empathetic Soldier

ABSTRACT

Empathy’s relation to the conduct of war is ambiguous. It is mentioned sporadically in international relations theory and, perhaps surprisingly, in official military doctrine. Yet empathy’s role in the military profession remains obscure, partly because it sits uneasily in military culture. Many military professionals struggle with how it is to be integrated with other, more clearly martial, virtues. Add to this struggle the confusion over what empathy actually is, and it quickly becomes easier to dismiss it or keep it at the fringes of consideration. It is my intent to clarify the concept of empathy in light of recent scholarship, and then to show the relevance of empathy to the tactical and strategic demands of war. Empathy bolsters soldiers’ understanding of human actors in the operational environment and it improves soldiers’ overall intentions. These benefits derive from the nature of empathy as an understanding of another’s experience, including emotions, beliefs, perspectives, or intentions, and the incorporation of this knowledge into further deliberation, especially important moral judgments.