• DOI:10.1177/1755088218786306
• Corpus ID: 149466790

The historical approach and the ‘war of ethics within the ethics of war’

@article{Braun2018TheHA,
  title={The historical approach and the ‘war of ethics within the ethics of war’},
  author={Christian Nikolaus Braun},
  journal={Journal of International Political Theory},
  year={2018},
  volume={14},
  pages={349 - 366}
}

• C. Braun
• Published 18 July 2018
• Sociology
• Journal of International Political Theory

Contemporary just war thinking has mostly been split into two competing camps, namely, Michael Walzer’s approach and its revisionist critics. While Walzerians employ a casuistical method, most revisionists resort to analytical philosophy’s reflective equilibrium. Importantly, besides employing different methods, the two sides also disagree on substantive issues. This article focuses on one such issue, the moral equality of combatants, arguing that while a methodological reconciliation between the two camps is impossible, contemporary debate would benefit from a ‘third-way’ approach. Presenting James Turner Johnson’s historical method as such an approach, the article suggests that while revisionists are correct in considering the symmetry thesis as ethically indefensible, in order to arrive at this judgement, it is not necessary to employ far-fetched thought experiments and the use of historical cases is preferable. The root cause of Walzer’s problematic reasoning vis-à-vis the symmetry thesis, the historical approach reveals, is his uneasy relationship with the just war tradition. Contributing to a deeper understanding of the respective approaches’ differences, the article seeks to move the focus of contemporary just war away from a narrow intra-disciplinary divide and towards an engagement with substantive questions.