next article in this issue  |
Preview first page |
Document Details : Title: Rechtvaardige oorlog en mondiale rechtvaardigheid Subtitle: Het probleem van hulpbronnenoorlogen Author(s): PEPERKAMP, Lonneke , TINNEVELT, Ronald Journal: Tijdschrift voor Filosofie Volume: 79 Issue: 4 Date: 2017 Pages: 643-681 DOI: 10.2143/TVF.79.4.3284697 Abstract : The accessibility and distribution of scarce resources — like food, water, and energy — is currently a serious international problem. This problem will only intensify in the near future. To what extent can an illegitimate lack of essential resources be a just cause for war? On the one hand, traditional just war theory is very restrictive in this regard, as it generally aims to limit war. The typical form of just war is a war of self-defense against military aggression. Resource wars, however, are not normally fought in response to military aggression. Revisionists like Luban, Fabre, Lippert-Rasmussen, and Øverland, on the other hand, starting from a different theoretical underpinning — one based on a global justice claim — do seem to be open to the permissibility of resource wars. The disagreement between traditionalists and revisionists could then be explained on the basis of two claims: one having to do with the unique nature of resource wars and one having to do with the views on morality and global justice. To what extent, however, is it really the case that resource wars uniquely differ from the more traditional forms of just war or that revisionists and traditionalists start from radically different moral premises? This paper critically assesses both claims and argues that the problem of resource wars can only be correctly understood and solved on the basis of a systematic account of the relationship between questions of just war and global justice. |
|
