The Historical Approach and the 'War of Ethics within the Ethics of War' Christian Nikolaus Braun 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 toward an engagement with substantive questions.

No abstract

This article assesses the recently renewed interest in the just war criterion of sovereign authority from a Thomistic perspective. It contrasts the classical conceptualisation of authority as found in the work of St Thomas Aquinas with the argument made by today's revisionist just war thinkers. The article points out that the two approaches start from fundamentally different units of moral analysis. While the Thomistic just war emphasises the common good of the political community revisionists advocate the perspective of moral individualism. As a result, for Thomism, only those entrusted with the responsibility for the common good of the political community are entitled to wage war while, in contrast, revisionists argue that any individual has the right to wage war. The latter side's position, the article criticises, is problematic from a moral point of view as it runs counter to the just war tradition's concern about restraint in the employment of force.

Between 1949 and the late 1970s, interactions between China (prc) and Middle Eastern nations were limited. After China started to implement economic reforms in 1978, however, the country opened up to the global economy in general and the Middle East in particular. Since the 1980s, the new Chinese economic dynamic, as a result of its economic reforms, has significantly increased China’s footprint in the region. China’s distinct approach has been to secure access to natural resources and new markets while, at the same time, making sure not to get bogged down in the Middle East’s political conflicts. However, as we argue in this paper, China’s role has by now become so prominent that it will be increasingly difficult for China to maintain its low-profile role. By analyzing the development of China’s role in the region generally as well as its specific relations to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Israel, we conclude that China is likely to become a more active player in the region.

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.