Feminist Reformulation Of Just War Essay

Critically evaluate feminist reformulation of just war theory.

Sjoberg (2006) defines ‘just war’ to represent ‘a discourse, rather than a moral framework’ in which we can ascertain the philosophical, religious and political criteria necessary for the use of force or participation in violent conflict, to be considered legitimate from a moral standpoint (Hun, 2014: 77). Inconsistencies in just war theory render it highly criticised by pacifist and feminist critique, with the end of the 1980s signalling the birth of substantive feminist critique of just war. Feminist critique of just war centres around 2 fundamental problems within the theory: the claim that war is an ‘undeniable fact of modern life’ and can at times be considered a precondition for a ‘permanent peace’ (Hun, 2014: 77); and, that just war is an abstract rejection of militaristic nature, and of war as a whole, based on the assumption that feminist critique must be anti-militarist by nature

This essay will critically evaluate feminist reformulation of just war theory by initially analysing feminist discourse covering just war, in an effort to conclude whether feminism is the right standpoint to critique just war from. Further, I will propose alternative theory which opposes the feminist critique of just war, and then evaluate whether this approach is effective. This will enable me to conclude whether feminist reformulation is successful in its critique of just war theory.

Peach (1994) argues that the domineering concerns for feminists regarding just war theory are due to ‘its relation to realism; the priority it accords to the state and to state authority vis-à-vis the individual’ (155-156). This is drawn from the relation between jus ad