Back to Search
Start Over
PENSIERO NORMATIVO E CAST DI GUERRA: GLI ARGOMENTI DI MICHAEL WALZER.
- Source :
- Sociologia del Diritto; 2006, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p191-198, 8p
- Publication Year :
- 2006
-
Abstract
- In recent decades, new 'cases' have occurred that can be analysed for studying the theory of the just war. This theory is invoked increasingly to justify military interventions, thus becoming increasingly comprehensive. Michael Walzer is a thinker whose well-known work Just and Unjust Wars (1977) contributed decisively to rejuvenating the reasoning behind this ancient tradition, focusing on its most important elements, possibilities and weaknesses and building a framework that grants war the status of an issue of normative ethics. The American social critic has also written another book about war, Arguing About War (2004), in which he further develops its theory, applying it to all the different cases that have taken place since the Gulf War (1991), including the one still under way in Iraq. The crucial point is that, besides the jus ad bellum (which deals with the decision to go to war) and the jus in bello (which deals with the conduct of battles), which were both tackled in Just and Unjust War, he explains the concept of jus post bellum, i.e. justice after the war. In addition to these arguments advanced by Walzer, one more criterion is added in the book's critical review: a fundamental jus ante bellum, by which war may be understood in its key elements and 'immanently criticised', as it always happens in normative thought. This criterion considers the conduct of actors before the conflict, or the ways and means whereby politicians can(not) wage war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Subjects :
- WAR & society
PERSIAN Gulf War, 1991
BOOKS
JUSTICE
POLITICIANS
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- Italian
- ISSN :
- 03900851
- Volume :
- 33
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- Complementary Index
- Journal :
- Sociologia del Diritto
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 21964800