Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 27
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Ish-Shalom, Piki 2016. Time is politics: temporalising justifications for war and the political within moral reasoning. Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 126.

    Johnston, Patrick B. and Sarbahi, Anoop K. 2016. The Impact of US Drone Strikes on Terrorism in Pakistan. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 60, Issue. 2, p. 203.

    Tyler Dunford, David 2016. Legal nominalism: A reconceptualization of post-9/11 legal complexes. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice,

    O'Driscoll, Cian 2015. Rewriting the Just War Tradition: Just War in Classical Greek Political Thought and Practice. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 59, Issue. 1, p. 1.

    BRUNSTETTER, DANIEL R. 2014. Trends in just war thinking during the US presidential debates 2000–12: genocide prevention and the renewed salience of last resort. Review of International Studies, Vol. 40, Issue. 01, p. 77.

    Leebaw, Bronwyn 2014. Scorched Earth: Environmental War Crimes and International Justice. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 12, Issue. 04, p. 770.

    Cumming, Ryan P. 2013. The African American Challenge to Just War Theory.

    Grynaviski, Eric 2013. The bloodstained spear: public reason and declarations of war. International Theory, Vol. 5, Issue. 02, p. 238.

    Condra, Luke N. and Shapiro, Jacob N. 2012. Who Takes the Blame? The Strategic Effects of Collateral Damage. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 56, Issue. 1, p. 167.

    Lutz, Catherine and Millar, Kathleen 2012. A Companion to Moral Anthropology.

    NORMAN, EMMA R. 2012. International Boggarts: Carl Schmitt,Harry Potter, and the Transfiguration of Identity and Violence. Politics & Policy, Vol. 40, Issue. 3, p. 403.

    Brunstetter, Daniel and Braun, Megan 2011. The Implications of Drones on the Just War Tradition. Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 25, Issue. 03, p. 337.

    Brunstetter, Daniel R. and Zartner, Dana 2011. Just War against Barbarians: Revisiting the Valladolid Debates between Sepúlveda and Las Casas. Political Studies, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 733.

    Acuto, Michele 2010. Immoral authorities: crusades, jihād and just war rhetoric. Journal of Global Ethics, Vol. 6, Issue. 1, p. 17.

    Archer, Candace and Fritsch, Stefan 2010. Global fair trade: Humanizing globalization and reintroducing the normative to international political economy. Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 17, Issue. 1, p. 103.

    Brunstetter, Daniel R. 2010. Sepúlveda, Las Casas, and the Other: Exploring the Tension between Moral Universalism and Alterity. The Review of Politics, Vol. 72, Issue. 03, p. 409.

    Allhoff, Fritz 2009. The War on Terror and the Ethics of Exceptionalism. Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 8, Issue. 4, p. 265.

    Heinze, Eric A. and Steele, Brent J. 2009. Ethics, Authority, and War.

    Sjoberg, Laura 2009. Ethics, Authority, and War.

    O’Driscoll, Cian 2008. The Renegotiation of the Just War Tradition and the Right to War in the Twenty-First Century.


Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War

  • Neta C. Crawford (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 March 2003

This article addresses three sets of questions. First, the George W. Bush administration claims that its cause and conduct in counterterror war are just. Such a claim invites moral assessment. How do normative beliefs and ethical concerns affect U.S. conduct in the counterterror war? Is the war just in cause and conduct? Second, many observers argue that warfare is “transformed.” How so? And is it possible to fight a just counterterror war in this context? Third, the transformation of war raises new questions for just war theory itself. Is the framework still useful? I argue that it is extremely difficult to fight a just counterterror war given the nature of terrorism and the realities of contemporary warfare. Yet I show that the Bush administration has made an effort to engage in a just counterterror war by meeting the criterion of self-defense and seeking to avoid noncombatant harm. Even so, current U.S. policy and practice in the counterterror war are not just. But any government would have a problem fighting a just counterterror war in the current context; indeed, the utility of just war theory itself is challenged. I discuss 12 conceptual and practical problems that arise at the intersection of just war theory and counterterror war, including the limits of self-defense, preemption, last resort, and discrimination. Despite these problems, I argue that just war theory is a useful method of inquiry into the problems of contemporary war. Our nation's cause has always been larger than our nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace—a peace that favors human liberty …. Building this just peace is America's opportunity, and America's duty. —George W. BushBush 2002.The Americans who conduct those operations are a tough and proud bunch. Their cause is a just one. It's to stop terrorists from killing Americans and others.—Donald H. RumsfeldRumsfeld 2001e.This is not a linear war; this is not a sequential war …. This is a different kind of conflict. This is asymmetric warfare. We have to use all the instruments of national power.—General Richard MyersMyers 2001b.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Perspectives on Politics
  • ISSN: 1537-5927
  • EISSN: 1541-0986
  • URL: /core/journals/perspectives-on-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *