Summary Of Just And Unjust Wars

EXPOSITION The justification of war — both in terms of jus in bello and jus ad bellum — is a difficult and complex task. This difficulty is increased immensely when trying to apply just war principles to terrorism, a complicated mix of typical and unconventional tactics that can be performed by both established and state governments. In the essay, I will critically address the discussion of terrorism by Michael Walzer in chapter 12 of “Just and Unjust Wars” (1977) and advocate for the justification of revolutionary terrorism. Walzer’s judgment of terrorism oversimplifies and neglects important complexities that must be considered in the ethical analysis of terrorism. Revolutionary terrorism possesses a series of extenuating circumstances that allow for its moral justification in terms of just war and social contract theories,
Operating under the social contract framework, the violation of said contract becomes crucial in evaluating the morality of revolutionary terrorism. The sanctity of the social contract depends on the mutual agreement of both parties in the exchange of consent to be governed by protection. However, when the state does not fulfill its obligations by turning against its citizens, it voids the terms of the social contract. Revolutionary forces would then be morally justified in utilizing terrorism. The violation of the contract shifts the moral responsibility onto the oppressive regime, where it arguably was in the first place. It does not make sense for an error on the part of the government to constitute overcompensation on the revolutionary part. By placing undue emphasis on the morality of the revolutionaries while ignoring what the oppressive regime has done to warrant them, Walzer’s approach creates a biased understanding of the moral complexities that must be acknowledged in cases of revolutionary