1 Walzer, Michael, Thinking Politically (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007), p. 309.Google Scholar

2 The most important theorist is probably Orend, Brian, ‘Jus Post Bellum’, Journal of Social Philosophy, 31:1 (2000), pp. 117–137, and The Morality of War (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar are two of the most prominent representations of his work. A litany of authors, too many to list here, have attempted their own versions. Some of the better examples not cited later in the article include: Bass, Gary, ‘Jus Post Bellum’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32:4 (2004), pp. 384–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar , and DiMeglio, Richard P., ‘The Evolution of the Just War Tradition: Defining Jus Post Bellum’, Military Law Review, 186 (2005), pp. 116–163.Google Scholar

3 Der Derian, James, ‘Virtuous War/Virtual Theory’, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–) 76:4 (2000), pp. 771–788; Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Network (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2001).Google Scholar

4 Ignatieff, Michael, Virtual War (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000), p. 5.Google Scholar Ignatieff writes of the Kosovo intervention, his case study of a virtual war, as being a war in which ‘technological mastery removed death from our experience of war.’

5 Der Derian, James, ‘Virtuous War/Virtual Theory’, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–) 76:4 (2000), p. 772.Google Scholar

6 See, for instance, Pape, Robert A., ‘The Limits of Precision-Guided Air Power’, Security Studies, 7:2 (1997), pp. 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Arquilla, John and Ronfeldt, David F., In Athena's Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age, (Washington, D.C.: RAND, 1997)Google Scholar ; Lonsdale, David J., The Nature of War in the Information Age: Clausewitzian Future (New York: Frank Cass, 2004)Google Scholar ; Kristensen, Jan G., ‘Effects-Based Operations: Air Power as the Sole Military Instrument of Power, Has it Matured Enough?’, Storming Media (April 2006).Google Scholar These studies, along with many others, are concerned with the virtual war aspect of the term virtuous war. And though they do not usually mention morality, they do investigate the novelties that the RMA has brought to warfare in the last fifteen or so years. Some, such as the edited volume by Arquilla and Ronfeldt, portray the nature of war as changing drastically. Others, such as Lonsdale's book, believe that warfare will remain as bloody and ‘Clausewitzian’ as ever, despite new technologies. Either way, the purpose of this article is to investigate the implications of technology and morality when combined for the effectiveness of just war theory in constraining warfare. In their investigation of half the virtuous war equation, these strategic theorists can be seen contributing to the brevity of the virtuous war claim.

7 See, for instance, Risse-Kappen, Thomas, ‘Democratic Peace – Warlike Democracies?’, European Journal of International Relations, 1:4 (1995), pp. 491–517Google Scholar ; Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark, ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:4 (1999), pp. 403–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Finnemore, Martha, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004)Google Scholar ; Wheeler, Nicholas J., Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar ; Reus-Smit, Christian, ‘Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty’, Review of International Studies, 27:4 (2001), pp. 519–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar These works are a small but important sample of the constructivist literature that not only deals with human rights norms, but concentrates on how those norms enable the actions of states. In this way, this literature supports the second half of the virtuous war claim – that human rights norms are prompting, or at least allowing, states to act where they otherwise might not.

8 Almost all of the just war theorists cited in this article work from somewhere in the liberal tradition, and many recognise the two aspects of virtuous war defined here as the most pressing concern for just war theory. Probably the most pointed work to express this concern is Rengger, Nicholas, ‘On the Just War Tradition in the Twenty-First Century’, International Affairs, 78:2 (2002), pp. 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar He writes that ‘the just war tradition at the opening of the twenty-first century shows some signs of having reached the limit of its elasticity […]’ (p. 361). In tacit agreement with the work being presented here, Rengger advises us not to give up on the tradition, though, but to recognise it as a way of thinking ‘that is central to the lives of free and reasonable persons’, (p. 363). Also, there is of course Ignatieff's Virtual War, a landmark work that begins to grapple with the implications of modern war-making technology for liberal states.

9 For the most recent look at the strain of realist agreement with virtuous war claims see, Desch, Michael C., ‘America's Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in US Foreign Policy’, International Security, 32:3 (2008), pp. 7–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Layne, Christopher, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006).Google Scholar Though avowedly unconcerned with the moral dimensions under consideration here, realists have always warned that moral considerations inevitably lead to aggression and over-extension in a state's foreign policy. In this way, they can be seen to implicitly support Der Derian's claim that human rights norms are contributing to a Western trigger-happiness. Both the authors cited here blame liberalism, replete as it is with notions of moral superiority and human rights, for at least the last decade and a half of imprudent war-making on the part of the US.

10 See Barkin, Samuel, ‘Realist Constructivism’ International Studies Review, 5:3 (2003), pp. 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 See Walzer, Michael, ‘The Triumph of Just War Theory (And the Dangers of Success)’, Social Research, 69:4 (2002), pp. 925–946.Google Scholar He gives a concise overview of the history of the tradition as it originated in Augustine and Aquinas' thought on Christianity and war in European antiquity, its later codification into international law by Grotius and others, and his own efforts to bring the tradition up-to-date after the Vietnam War. Thus, when the tradition is spoken of here I am referring to this common understanding of an ever-evolving commitment in the Western world to constraining war through moral arguments. When I speak of theory I am referring to the precise content of the ethical doctrine emanating from the tradition at particular historical moments.

12 See Walzer, ‘The Triumph of Just War…’

13 As stated earlier, the virtuous war literature is an imagined one for the purposes of this article; no scholars explicitly call themselves virtuous war thinkers. Likewise, the virtuous war paradigm spoken of here simply denotes a way of thinking about war developed in this article by combining the insights of many disparate scholars around Der Derian's phrase, a phrase that I feel can encompass the work of all those mentioned.

14 Alex J. Bellamy writes on the philosophical roots of what he deems the two major positions of jus post bellum advocates – minimalist and maximalist positions delineated generally by their call for restraints or responsibilities after war, respectively. But he elides the sociological view espoused here; that just war advances are intrinsically connected to the exigencies of the practice of war. In doing so he is also able to elide this aspect when judging whether a jus post bellum is needed, instead finding fault with the philosophical coherence of current jus post bellum manifestations and stopping there. Needless to say, this article takes a radically different approach to the study of just war doctrine. ‘The Responsibilities of Victory: Jus Post Bellum and the Just War’, Review of International Studies, 34:4 (2008), pp. 601–25.

15 This intuition is indebted to the work of Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas, who write that theories change or are superseded because in the ‘dialectic of psychological reality [read: moral reality] and social structure [r]adical changes in the social structure […] may result in concomitant changes in psychological reality [in which] new psychological theories may arise because the old ones no longer adequately explain the empirical phenomena at hand.’ The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), p. 179.Google Scholar

16 Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York, Basic Books, 2006 [1977] 4th edition).Google Scholar

17 Burke, Anthony, ‘Against the New Internationalism’, Ethics and International Affairs, 19:2 (2005), p. 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Jabri, Vivienne, War and the Transformation of Global Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 187–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Shaw, Martin, War & Genocide: Organized Killing in Modern Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003), p. 103.Google Scholar

20 Potter, J. and Whetherell, M., Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 49.Google Scholar

21 Jabri, Vivienne, Discourses on Violence: Conflict Analysis Reconsidered (New York: Manchester University Press, 1996), p. 107, emphasis added.Google Scholar

22 Walzer, Michael, Arguing About War (Harrisonburg, VA: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 3.Google Scholar

23 Burke, Anthony, ‘Just War or Ethical Peace? Moral Discourses of Strategic Violence after 9/11’, International Affairs, 80:2 (2004), p. 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Walzer, Thinking Politically, p. 237.

25 Ibid., p. 238.

26 Lucas, George R. Jr., ‘From Jus Ad Bellum to Jus Ad Pacem: Re-thinking Just-War Criteria for the Use of Military Force for Humanitarian Ends’, in Chatterjee, Deen K and Scheid, Don E. (eds), Ethics and Foreign Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 72.Google Scholar

27 See especially constructivist accounts of the rise of the humanitarian intervention norm by Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention, and Wheeler, Saving Strangers.

28 Garrett, Stephen defines humanitarian intervention as ‘the injection of military power – or the threat of such action – by one or more outside states into the affairs of another state that has as its purpose (or at least one of its principal purposes) the relieving of grave human suffering.’ Doing good and doing well: An examination of humanitarian intervention (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), p. 3.Google Scholar

29 Lu, Catherine, Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), pp. 164–165.Google Scholar

30 Wheeler, Saving Strangers, p. 1.

31 Lu, Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics, p. 154.

32 Risse, Thomas, “International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behavior in the Human Rights Arena”. Politics and Society 27, No. 4 (1999) pp. 529–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 See Wheeler 2000 for a full explanation of the English School concept of a society of states as it relates to intervention.

34 Ignatieff (2000) gives a lucid account of this process, in which the rise of ‘smart’ and long range weaponry has given highly industrialised nations such as the US a massive military advantage over less technically advanced states.

35 Ignatieff, Virtual War, p. 184.

36 Ibid., p. 169.

37 Avant, Deborah D., The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Ibid., p. 36.

39 Boettcher, William A. III, ‘Military Intervention Decisions regarding Humanitarian Crises: Framing Induced Risk Behavior’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48:3 (2004), p. 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 For instance: Gray, Chris Hables calls it ‘postmodern war’: Postmodern War: The New Politics of Conflict (New York: Guilford Press, 2007).Google ScholarBauman, Zygmunt calls it ‘globalizing war’: ‘Wars of the Globalization Era’, European Journal of Social Theory, 4:1 (2001), pp. 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar And Kaldor, Mary calls it ‘spectacle war’: ‘Elaborating the “New War” Thesis’, in Duyvesteyn, Isabell and Angstrom, Jan (eds), Rethinking the Nature of War (New York: Frank Cass, 2005).Google Scholar

41 Shaw, Martin, The New Western Way of War: Risk-Transfer War and its Crisis in Iraq (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), p. 71.Google Scholar

42 Sir Rupert Smith, General, The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (London: Penguin Books, 2005), p. 270.Google Scholar

43 Baudrillard, Jean, The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

44 Schwabach, Aaron, ‘Virtual War and International Law’, Law and Literature, 15:1 (2003), pp. 15–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Der Derian, ‘Virtuous War/Virtual Theory’, p. 772.

46 The contention that force was legally justified because Iraq had not held firm to the letter of UN resolutions with regards to weapons inspections is unconvincing. Alex J. Bellamy writes that ‘[m]ost international lawyers and states discounted the claim that the war was legal because it had been authorized by the Security Council.’ None of the UN resolutions cited by the US or Britain implied that force could be used; ‘the Council has never authorized the use of force to implement Resolution 687 [calling for Iraqi disarmament] [and most tellingly, in] September and November 2002, the USA and UK proposed a resolution that endorsed the use of force if Iraq continued to be in material breach of its obligations, but failed to persuade most other Council members to support it.’ Bellamy, , ‘Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq’, Journal of Peace Research, 41:2 (2004), pp. 134–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Keegan, John, The Iraq War (New York: Vantage Books, 2005), p. 1.Google Scholar

48 Gray, Colin S., ‘The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsideration’, Strategic Studies Institute (Carlisle, PA), {http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil}, p. v.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., p. 13.

50 See, for example, Crawford, Neta C., ‘The Slippery Slope to Preventive War’, Ethics and International Affairs, 17:1 (Spring 2003), p. 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar , in which she reasons that the just war requirement of last resort prohibits preventive war, even in the face of rogue states, WMD and terrorism, because it always ‘assume[s] perfect knowledge of an adversary's ill intentions’, something that is never possible.

51 A few examples: Colin Powell stated before the World Economic Forum in January, 2003 that ‘We are where we are today with Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his regime have repeated violated the trust of the UN, his people, and his neighbors, to such an extent as to pose a grave danger to international peace and security.’ ‘THREATS AND RESPONSES; Powell on Iraq: “We Reserve Our Sovereign Right to Take Military Action”’, The New York Times (27 January 2003), available at: {http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E6DD1239F934A15752C0A9659C8B63&scp=2&sq=Iraq+humanitarian+technology&st=nyt} accessed 19 February 2009; President Bush stated on 28 March 2003 that ‘the Iraqi regime will be ended and the long-suffering Iraqi people will be free.’ Thom Shanker and Elisabeth Bumiller, ‘A NATION AT WAR: HEADS OF GOVERNMENT; War to Keep Going Until Regime Ends, Bush and Blair Say, The New York Times, available at: {http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E2D81F30F93BA15750C0A9659C8B63&scp=9&sq=Iraq+humanitarian+technology&st=nyt} accessed 19 February 2009; and for a view on how technology shaped war planning, see Matthew Brzezinski, ‘The Unmanned Army’, The New York Times (20 April 2003), available at: {http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03EFDF103BF933A15757C0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=Iraq+Rumsfeld+technology&st=nyt} accessed 19 February 2009.

52 Jean Bethke Elshtain, ‘A Just War?’, Boston Globe (10 June 2002), available at: {http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/100602_justwar.htm} accessed 11 Novemebr 2008.

53 See Bellamy, ‘Ethics and Intervention…’ pp. 131–47, for why crimes must be ongoing for them to be considered as evidence requiring a just response.

54 James Turner Johnson, ‘Using Military Force against the Saddam Hussein Regime: The Moral Issues’, Foreign Policy Research Institute (4 December, 2002), available at: {http://www.fpri.org/enotes/americawar.20021204.johnson.militaryagainsthusseinmoralissues.html} accessed on 4 November 2008.

55 Ibid.

56 Elshtain, Jean Bethke, Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World (New York: Basic Books, 2003), p. 54.Google Scholar

57 Gray, ‘The Implications of Preemptive…’ p. 7.

58 Wheeler, Nicholas J., ‘Humanitarian Intervention after September 11, 2001’, in Lang, A. F. Jr. (ed.), Just Intervention (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003), p. 198.Google Scholar

59 See Orend, The Morality of War, p. 205. He writes that based upon ‘nation-building research’ the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war called for around 500,000 troops, as well as expectations of a long stay.

60 Eric Schmitt, ‘Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size’, The New York Times (28 February, 2003), {http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm}.

61 W. Pincus, ‘Memo: US Lacked Full Post-War Iraq Plan’, The Washington Post (12 June 2005), {http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723_pf.html}.

62 Quoted in M. R. Gordon, ‘Army Buried Study Faulting Iraq Planning’, The New York Times (11 February 2008), {http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html?_r=1andscp=1andsq=randandst=nytandoref=slogin}, p. 2.

63 Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, ‘THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE MILITARY; War Plan Calls for Precision Bombing Wave to Break Iraqi Army Early in Attack’, The New York Times (2 February 2003), {http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E3DF1238F931A35751C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1} accessed 20 February 2009; Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, ‘AFTEREFFECTS: MILITARY STRATEGY; Latest Mission for Armed Forces: Analyze New Ways to Prepare for Conflicts’, The New York Times (30 April 2003), {http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E7DD1E3DF933A05757C0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=Rumsfeld+military+buildup&st=nyt} accessed 20 February 2009.

64 Ottoway, M. S., ‘One Country, Two Plans’, Foreign Policy, 137 (2003), p. 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Negus, S., ‘The Insurgency Intensifies’, Middle East Report, no. 232 (2004), p. 23.Google Scholar

66 Shaw, The New Western Way of War, p. 139.

67 Bernard Weinraub and Thom Shanker, ‘A NATION AT WAR: UNDER FIRE; Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield’, The New York Times (1 April 2003), {http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE5DA1039F932A35757C0A9659C8B63} accessed 8 November 2008.

68 For a first-hand look at justice in post-war Iraq see Feldman, Noah, What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation-Building (Princeton University Press, 2006).Google Scholar Also see my own contribution: Banta, Benjamin R., ‘Just War Theory and the 2003 Iraq War Forced Displacement’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 21:3 (2008), pp. 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Coady, C. A. J., ‘War for Humanity: A Critique’, in Chatterjee, Deen K and Scheid, Don E. (eds), Ethics and Foreign Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 278.Google Scholar

70 Burke, ‘Against the New Internationalism’, p. 73.

71 Shinko, Rosemary E., ‘Agonistic Peace: A Postmodern Reading’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 36:3 (2008), p. 490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Brown, Chris, ‘Selective Humanitarianism: In Defense of Inconsistency’, in Chatterjee, Deen K and Scheid, Don E. (eds), Ethics and Foreign Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 48.Google Scholar

73 Jabri, War and the Transformation of Global Politics, p. 185.

74 Burke, ‘Just War or Ethical Peace…’, pp. 329–53.

75 Der Derian, ‘Virtuous War/Virtual Theory’, p. 786.

76 Shaw, The New Western Way of War, p. 141.

77 Burke, Anthony, Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence: War Against the Other (New York: Routledge, 2007) p. 161.Google Scholar

78 Burke, ‘Just War or Ethical Peace…’, p. 349.

79 Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonion, Empire (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 2000)Google Scholar , ‘The passage to the society of control does not in any way mean the end of discipline. In fact, the immanent exercise of discipline – that is, the self-disciplining of subjects, the incessant whisperings of disciplinary logics within subjectivities themselves – is extended even more generally in the society of control.’ p. 330.

80 Foucault, Michel, ‘Governmentality’, Aut Aut (September–December, 1978), pp. 167–168.Google Scholar

81 Hardt and Negri, Empire, p. 36.

82 Burke, ‘Just War or Ethical Peace…’, p. 350.

83 Walzer, Thinking Politically, p. 252.

84 Burke, Anthony, Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence: War Against the Other (NY: Routledge, 2007), p. 163.Google Scholar

85 Ibid., p. 164.

86 Lu, Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics, p. 98.

87 Burke, Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence, p. 161.

88 Walzer, Thinking Politically, p. 299.

89 Campbell, David, ‘Justice and International Order: The Case of Bosnia and Kosovo’, in Coicaud, Jean-Marc and Warner, Daniel (eds), Ethics and International Affairs: Extent and Limits (New York: UN University Press, 2001), p. 110.Google Scholar

90 Campbell, ‘Justice and International Order…’, p. 109.

91 Walzer, Michael, Arguing About War (Harrisonburg, VA: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 13.Google Scholar

92 Ibid., p. 13.

93 Ibid.

94 Walzer, Arguing About War, p. 15.

95 There is good reason to be sceptical about the human security paradigm, so I will not be wholly endorsing it as a parallel to just war theory with the addition of a jus post bellum. See Chandler, David, ‘Human Security: The Dog that didn't Bark’, Security Dialogue, 39:4 (2008), pp. 427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96 Campbell, ‘Justice and International Order…’, p. 104.

97 See, for instance, Coady, ‘War for Humanity: A Critique’, pp. 274–95.

98 Murnion, William E., ‘A Postmodern View of Just War’, in Lee, Steven P. (ed.), Intervention, Terrorism, and Torture: Contemporary Challenges to Just War Theory (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007), p. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

99 Ibid., p. 35.

100 Ibid., p. 34.

101 Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 2006, 4th edition), p. 152–159.Google Scholar

102 Orend, The Morality of War, p. 162.

103 Murnion, ‘A Postmodern View of Just War’, p. 33.

104 Orend, The Morality of War, p. 264.

105 Orend, ‘Jus Post Bellum’, p. 122.

106 Ibid., p. 123.

107 Lieutenant Camilla Bosanquet, ‘Refining Jus Post Bellum’, International Symposium for Military Ethics, 25 (January 2007), p. 4, available at: {http://www.usafa.edu/isme/ISME07/Bosanquet07.html}, accessed 2 July 2008.

108 Iasiello, Louis V., ‘Jus Post Bellum: The Moral Responsibilities of Victors in War’, Naval War College Review, 57 (2004), pp. 33–52.Google Scholar

109 Ibid., p. 42–3.

110 Bosanquet, ‘Refining Jus Post Bellum’, p. 8.

111 Williams, Robert E. Jr. and Caldwell, Dan, ‘Jus Post Bellum: Just War Theory and the Principles of a Just Peace’, International Studies Perspectives, 7:4 (2006), p. 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112 Elshtain, Jean Bethke, ‘International Justice as Equal Regard and the Use of Force’, Ethics & International Affairs 17:2: (2003), p. 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113 Burke, ‘Just War or Ethical Peace…’, p. 352.

114 Shaw, The New Western Way of War, p. 136.

115 Orend, War and International Justice, p. 221.

116 Smith, The Utility of Force, pp. 400–01.

117 Orend, War and International Justice, p. 254.

118 Burke, ‘Against the New Internationalism’, p. 80.

119 Orend, War and International Justice, p. 220.

120 Rawls, John, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar