Revitalised Early Christian Just War Thinking and International Law: Some Observations on Nigel Biggar’s In Defence of War

In light of the well-established international legal principle of non-use of force in international relations, Nigel Biggar’s In Defence of War may give rise to concern in the academy of international lawyers. But the gap between the book’s conclusions and the current international law on the use of...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Studies in Christian ethics
Main Author: Kreß, Claus (Author)
Contributors: Biggar, Nigel 1955- (Bibliographic antecedent)
Format: Electronic Review
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Sage 2015
In: Studies in Christian ethics
Review of:In defence of war (Oxford [u.a.] : Oxford University Press, 2013) (Kreß, Claus)
RelBib Classification:CG Christianity and Politics
KAJ Church history 1914-; recent history
NCD Political ethics
XA Law
Further subjects:B Christian just war thinking
B Book review
B international law on the use of force
B Humanitarian Intervention
B just war as punishment
B legal status of the unjust warrior
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:In light of the well-established international legal principle of non-use of force in international relations, Nigel Biggar’s In Defence of War may give rise to concern in the academy of international lawyers. But the gap between the book’s conclusions and the current international law on the use of force turns out to be less significant upon closer inspection than at first sight. This essay reviews Biggar’s concept of ‘just war as punishment’, his view on the legal status of the ‘unjust warrior’, and his position on ‘humanitarian intervention’ from the perspective of international law. The essay is critical of the relevant passages in several more specific respects. At the same time, the essay reads the book as an elaborate general word of caution against an overarching presumption in favour of a maximalist interpretation of the principle of non-use of force in international relations—and it finds merit in that cautionary approach.
ISSN:0953-9468
Reference:Kritik in "In Response (2015)"
Contains:Enthalten in: Studies in Christian ethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1177/0953946814565316