Despite a recent explosion of interest in the ethics of armed conflict, the traditional just war criterion that war be waged by a “legitimate authority” has received relatively little attention. Moreover, of those theorists who have addressed the criterion, many are deeply skeptical about its moral significance. This article aims to add some clarity and precision to the authority criterion and the debates surrounding it, and to suggest that this skepticism may be too quick. The first section analyzes the authority criterion and reveals that there are at least two distinct moral claims associated with it, each requiring separate evaluation. The second section outlines an increasingly influential “reductivist” approach to just war theory, explaining how this approach grounds powerful objections to the authority criterion. The third section sketches the most promising strategies for providing a qualified defense of authority, while acknowledging the further questions and complications these strategies raise. Importantly, the article aims to rehabilitate the authority criterion from within a broadly reductivist view.
Full article available to subscribers only. Click here for access.
More in this issue
Summer 2017 (31.2) • Feature
Does Who Matter? Legal Authority and the Use of Military Violence
In this article, Pål Wrange demonstrates that in international law there is no consistent, over-arching conception of proper authority. Instead, he concludes, there exists ...

Summer 2017 (31.2) • Essay
A Better Process, a Stronger UN Secretary-General: How Historic Change Was Forged and What Comes Next
In the past, UN secretaries-general were chosen on the basis of a haphazard and secretive process behind closed doors. Yet over the last two years, ...
Summer 2017 (31.2) • Feature
Pro Mundo Mori? The Problem of Cosmopolitan Motivation in War
In this feature article, Lior Erez explores the problem of motivating soldiers to fight in cosmopolitan wars. First, he argues that the problem is best ...