C. Anthony Pfaff
©2024 C. Anthony Pfaff
As wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue with little end in sight, the sense of urgency to determine how they should end is increasing, given how the wars could end. A just war aims to establish a better state of peace, but a better state of peace may not always be achievable, and even when it is achievable, it may not be good enough. When that is the case, actors must determine on what terms to settle, given what they think they can achieve based on relative capabilities and cost tolerances. The resulting “maximin” solution, a practical approach where actors maximize the minimum they can achieve, provides a range of solutions. But taking only these factors into account is not likely to produce an enduring or more perfect peace. To get to a “good enough” state of peace, justice concerns—in this case framed by the just-war tradition—play a role. By impacting what counts as costs and benefits and placing boundaries on what actors should accept independently of those costs and benefits, the just-war tradition can help actors construct more durable settlements. The experiences in Ukraine and Gaza further illustrate gaps in the just-war tradition, which this book also addresses.
Keywords:
bargaining theory, just-war tradition,
jus ad bellum,
jus in bello,
jus post bellum,
jus ex bello, Russia-Ukraine War, Israel-Hamas War