Reconsidering "Supreme Emergencies": Michael Walzer and His Critics (Essay)

1. Introduction While Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars is widely recognized as a classic addition to the tradition of just war theorizing, his views have nonetheless been subjected to a range of recent criticisms. (1) Some have attacked his (and the tradition's) distinction between jus ad bellum (the justice of going to war) and jus in bello (the justice of the means used in fighting wars) with his related claim for the "moral equality of soldiers" on both sides of a war, while others have focused on his severe restrictions on humanitarian intervention. (2) However, I think it is fair to say, with Brian Orend, that "one of the most difficult and controversial aspects" of Walzer's theory is his doctrine of "supreme emergency," which claims that the threat of an imminent and morally disastrous defeat allows parties fighting a just war to override the profound and typically dispositive jus in bello rule against intentionally targeting an aggressor state's noncombatants. (3) Citing only two real-world cases--the British decision to target German civilians early in World War II and the nuclear deterrence regime that intentionally targeted Soviet civilians--he thus seems to legitimize what is otherwise murder and terrorism.