Why Just War Needs Feminism Now More Than Ever

Sjoberg, Laura

doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800216

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rhetoric of protection also resonates with just war thinking more generally in which women are "beautiful souls" that need to be protected by "just warriors". For a recent feminist appraisal of just war thinking, see Sjoberg 2008, and for an older critique of the language of protection particularly in relation to the state, see Sunder Rajan & Pathak 1992 xii In a recent piece, Sarbani Bandyopadhyay (2008) observes how contemporary Naxalite-led movements in central India fail to question and thus uphold the patriarchal ideology of feminine modesty in discourses of community honour even when considering the sexual abuse of women. Such unquestioned patriarchal assumptions blunt the edge of their radical politics.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethical Ambivalence of Resistant Violence: Notes from Postcolonial South Asia

Roy

2009

Feminist Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the face of mounting militarism in south Asia, this essay turns to anti-state, "liberatory" movements in the region that employ violence to achieve their political aims. It explores some of the ethical quandaries that arise from the embrace of such violence, particularly for feminists for who political violence and militarism is today a moot point. Feminist responses towards resistant political violence have, however, been less straightforward than the violence of the state suggesting a more ambivalent ethical position towards the former than the latter. The nature of this ambivalence can be located in a postcolonial feminist ethics that is conceptually committed to the use of political violence in certain, albeit exceptional circumstances on the basis of the ethical ends that this violence (as opposed to other oppressive violence) serves. In opening up this ethical ambivalence -or the ethics of ambiguity, as Simone de Beauvoir says -to interrogation and reflection, I underscore the difficulties involved in ethically discriminating between forms of violence especially when we consider the manner in which such distinctions rely on and reproduce gendered modes of power. This raises particular problems for current feminist appraisals of resistant political violence as an expression of women"s empowerment and "agency".

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethical Ambivalence of Resistant Violence: Notes from Postcolonial South Asia

Roy

2009

Feminist Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the conceptualization of rape as a weapon of war could shed new light on an incomplete just war theory (Elshtain 1992; Sjoberg 2008; Waltzer 1977, 2004) and such theoretical additions would, arguably, raise new debates within normative IR scholarship; for instance, how IR theoretically approaches questions of justice, shame, responsibility and reconciliation in, and after, war (Lu 2008).…”

Section: Rape As a Weapon Of War In Irmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should International Relations Consider Rape a Weapon of War?

Carter

2010

Pol & Gen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…But not entirely unnoticed by feminists. See, for example, Cudd (2009), Orford (2003, Sjoberg (2008), and Sylvester (2002). 2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Truly humanitarian intervention: considering just causes and methods in a feminist cosmopolitan frame

Cudd¹

2013

Journal of Global Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In international law, 'humanitarian intervention' refers to the use of military force by one nation or group of nations to stop genocide or other gross human rights violations in another sovereign nation. If humanitarian intervention is conceived as military in nature, it makes sense that only the most horrible, massive, and violent violations of human rights can justify intervention. Yet, that leaves many serious evils beyond the scope of legal intervention. In particular, violations of women's rights and freedoms often go unchecked. To address this problem, I begin from two basic questions: When are violations of human rights sufficiently serious to require an international response of some sort? What should that response be? By re-orienting the aim and justification of international law to focus on individual autonomy rather than on peace between nations, I argue that women's rights violations other than genocide and mass rape can warrant intervention. Military intervention is often counter-productive to the aim of achieving autonomy, however. I suggest a range of responses to human rights violations that includes military intervention as one end of the spectrum, and combine this with a greater understanding of the scope of human rights violations that require international response.

show abstract

Why Just War Needs Feminism Now More Than Ever

Cited by 11 publications

References 43 publications

The Ethical Ambivalence of Resistant Violence: Notes from Postcolonial South Asia

The Ethical Ambivalence of Resistant Violence: Notes from Postcolonial South Asia

Should International Relations Consider Rape a Weapon of War?

Truly humanitarian intervention: considering just causes and methods in a feminist cosmopolitan frame

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About