A Just and Lasting Peace After War

Peperkamp, Lonneke

doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823285.003.0003

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, Joseph Carens' comments in this respect might be helpful, when he states that "the assumptions (a realistic or idealistic approach) we adopt should depend in part on the purposes of our inquiry." (Carens, 1996: 169) Nonetheless, not everyone might share this view of the character and purpose of just war theory (Peperkamp, 2019(Peperkamp, , 2020. Moreover, there is certainly a place for both aspirational and realistic approaches.…”

Section: Relevance and Action-guidancementioning

confidence: 99%

Redistributive wars

Peperkamp

2023

Philosophia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can the global poor wage a just redistributive war against the global rich? The moral norms governing the use of force are usually considered to be very strict. Nonetheless, some philosophers have recently argued that violating duties of global justice can be a just cause for war. This paper discusses redistributive wars. It shows that the strength of these arguments is contingent on the underlying account of global distributive justice. The paper focuses on the “doing harm argument,” under the assumption that the alternative “allowing harm argument” is a more difficult route to justify redistributive wars. After highlighting several preliminary problems, the paper breaks down and assesses in depth the “doing harm argument”: the empirical premise, the rights violation that constitutes the wrong, liability and degrees of responsibility, and the conditions for justified self-defense. By drawing on principles reflected in criminal law, this paper argues that a general “doing harm argument” for redistributive wars is unconvincing, while a reinterpretation of that argument could theoretically give rise to a just cause for war.

show abstract

Section: Relevance and Action-guidancementioning

confidence: 99%

Redistributive wars

Peperkamp

2023

Philosophia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Y, en segundo lugar, la memoria (colectiva, histórica, democrática). Relaciones conceptuales que muestran la existencia de un vínculo argumental entre la violencia estructural, la violencia cultural, la paz positiva y las políticas públicas de memoria, en un contexto de gestión postconflicto (ius post bellum) (Peperkamp, 2017). Vinculación argumental que, a fortiori, asumimos como premisa para el presente artículo y que exploraremos a continuación.…”

Section: Ius Post Bellum Y Paz Positiva Como Marco Teóricounclassified

Ius post bellum, paz positiva y memoria democrática: Un marco teórico para las políticas de memoria en España

Díaz Anabitarte,

Digón Martín

2023

Rev. Estud. Polít.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La reflexión académica sobre la construcción y el mantenimiento de la paz se fundamenta en teorías como la del ius post bellum, marco normativo que entronca con la justicia transicional (y transformativa) y la memoria democrática. Este texto plantea un encuentro entre dichos enfoques: se estudia el alcance de los respectivos conceptos, se señalan los puntos de intersección y diferencias y, finalmente, se avanza hacia una síntesis incipiente entre ellos, como aportación para el debate sobre los principios que fundamentan las políticas públicas de memoria, paz y derechos humanos, en el contexto de despliegue de la Ley de Memoria Democrática en España. Para ello, el artículo propone enlazar tres áreas de estudio: el ius post bellum, la justicia –transicional y transformativa– y la memoria democrática, en perspectiva de aplicación a la gestión de escenarios postconflicto y procesos de transición hacia sistemas democráticos tras una dictadura, tomando como referencia el caso español. En esencia, el núcleo del artículo sostiene la utilidad de la teoría del ius post bellum –en una lectura transformativa y no meramente restaurativa– para la fundamentación normativa de las políticas públicas de memoria democrática.

show abstract

“…Another contested concept that Forster and Taylor discuss is peace. While many just war theorists would agree that a "just peace" is the goal of just war theory, they fundamentally disagree on what constitutes such a peace (Peperkamp, 2020a). Forster and Taylor delineate a negative peace and a positive peace (Galtung, 1969); the former is characterized by the absence of violence, and the latter by the absence of structural violence and an improvement in terms of justice (Forster and Taylor, 2021: 7).…”

Section: Peace and Jus Post Bellummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the specific situation to which just war theory applies, and the coercive context in which states generally act outside their own territory, potentially impeding the self-determination of their (former) adversaries, this overstretches the theory's boundaries. Just war theory is there to protect the most fundamental human rights in the messy reality of war and its aftermath, it is not a vector for the realization of human rights broadly perceived (Peperkamp, 2020a). Instead of pursuing the ideal of human flourishing in the aftermath of war, all the examples mentioned in the introduction of this article would look dramatically better if a modest middle of the road peace was realized; a somewhat stable peace in which people are secure and see their most basic human rights protected.…”

Section: Peace and Jus Post Bellummentioning

confidence: 99%

Restraining the fox: Minimalism in the ethics of war and peace

Peperkamp

2021

Journal of International Political Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peace plays a central role in the ethics of war and peace, but this proves to be an enormous challenge. In a recent article, Elisabeth Forster and Isaac Taylor grapple with this important topic. They argue that certain concepts in just war theory—aggression, legitimacy, and peace—are essentially contested and susceptible to manipulation. Because the rules are interpreted and applied by the very states that wage war, it is as if the fox is asked to guard the chicken coop—a recipe for disaster. To avoid manipulation of the theory and make the goal of peace attainable, they defend “minimalism” in the ethics of war and peace. This paper responds to and builds on their article. After nuancing the analysis, I will argue (a) that their minimalism does not solve the problem since the proposed alternative concept is equally prone to misuse, and (b) that their minimalism is mistargeted. What I propose is to specify and ground the rules of war without raising the standard too high, to disentangle jus ad bellum and jus post bellum and see peace as guiding principle for jus post bellum, and to interpret that in a minimalist way.

show abstract

A Just and Lasting Peace After War

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Redistributive wars

Redistributive wars

Ius post bellum, paz positiva y memoria democrática: Un marco teórico para las políticas de memoria en España

Restraining the fox: Minimalism in the ethics of war and peace

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About