Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations

When can a foreign power justly intervene militarily in another state? In your view, are the exceptions to the rule against intervention too permissive or restrictive? Use a contemporary or historical example (it does not have to be in the text) in your response.

How does the war convention reconcile the prohibition on killing noncombatants with military necessity? In what ways would Walzer revise this reconciliation? Which is the better approach?

Are there common moral standards among humanity? Do the disagreements about the application of moral standards and rights attest to their presence or undermine the case for them?

What are Walzer’s criteria for a supreme emergency which would allow the war convention to be broken? Are his criteria too permissive or restrictive? Why?

Whom would Walzer hold accountable for the crime of aggressive war? Does he hold too many or too few accountable? What standards does he set, and are these fair?

Can soldier ever be excused after committing war crimes? If they do, whom does Walzer hold accountable?

The utilitarian approach to war believes “war is hell,” and therefore no behavior should be restricted. Make an argument in favor of utilitarianism: In what situations is this approach necessary?

Walzer wrote Just and Unjust Wars during the height of the Cold War. Describe the Cold War and its relation to Waltzer’s theory: Do nuclear weapons and the reliance on deterrence to prevent nuclear war undermine his theory? Why or why not?