How Just War Theory May Survive Without the Supreme Emergency Exemption

Abstract

Since the human cost of war is inevitably great, the West has traditionally articulated, defended, and at least nominally practiced a theory of fighting just wars. Unfortunately, this laudable theory is liable to attack because of the widely recognized doctrine of the 'supreme emergency exemption' (SEE). This doctrine states that a nation at war may directly target the civilian population of an enemy nation in an emergency situation, even though such use of force is forbidden by the other rules of just war theory. As a result, just war theory (JWT) appears to offer paradoxical advice, for it says both that civilians may never be targeted, and also that civilians may be targeted in certain circumstances. Traditional just war proponents such as Michael Walzer 1 and Brian Orend 2 both appreciate this problem but insist that it is necessary to retain this paradox, 3 since the SEE seems to explain many difficult wartime situations. I regard their views as both problematic and unnecessary. They are problematic because they threaten to undermine the credibility of JWT itself. The main rival to JWT is