Writing in this journal in 2013, Daniel Brunstetter and Megan Braun have suggested that some forms of interstate violence—in particular, uses of force that fall short of full-scale war—cannot be judged by the principles that are commonly used to evaluate war. They argue that such uses of force should instead be evaluated with reference to a distinctive set of principles that, following Michael Walzer, they call jus ad vim. In this essay I argue that such a proposed set of principles is redundant, and that the jus ad vim project stems largely from an implausible understanding of the principles of jus ad bellum.
I begin by outlining Brunstetter and Braun’s arguments in favor of jus ad vim. I then go on to show that each of these arguments fails and that, properly understood, the traditional principles of jus ad bellum do the necessary work in restricting and permitting force. I conclude by considering Brunstetter and Braun’s claims about the implications of jus ad vim for the use of drones, arguing that, contra Brunstetter and Braun, jus ad vim does not better capture the harms and goods relevant to uses of limited force, and does not better adhere to the requirement of discrimination.
This article is available to subscribers only. Access the article here.
More in this issue
Spring 2016 (30.1) • Response
Jus ad Vim: A Rejoinder to Helen Frowe
Frowe argues from the revisionist just war position, accepting that this is the correct interpretation of just war principles. This view misses something important about ...
Spring 2016 (30.1) • Feature
Robots and Respect: Assessing the Case Against Autonomous Weapon Systems
There is increasing speculation within military and policy circles that the future of armed conflict is likely to include extensive deployment of autonomous weapon systems. ...
Spring 2016 (30.1) • Essay
Scientific Man vs. Power Politics: A Pamphlet and Its Author between Two Academic Cultures
This monograph reflects Morgenthau’s peculiar situation, as he inhabits two sometimes crucially different semantic and cultural contexts, but fails to bridge or broker them.