ContemporaryIntermediateBook

Just and Unjust Wars

Michael Walzer

Just war theory / political philosophy

The authoritative modern account of just war theory. Walzer argues that there is a genuine moral logic to the conduct of war — that wars can be just or unjust, that soldiers and statesmen are morally responsible for how they fight, and that civilian immunity is a real constraint that cannot be overridden simply by military necessity. Essential for any route on war, international relations, justice, or the ethics of violence.

About the author

American political philosopher (b. 1935), long-term professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Walzer has written across political philosophy — on liberalism, socialism, communitarianism, and civil society — but Just and Unjust Wars (1977) is his most widely read and studied work. He is also associated with communitarian critiques of Rawlsian liberalism, arguing in Spheres of Justice (1983) that justice is not a single principle but a family of standards appropriate to different social goods.

Synopsis

An analysis of the moral dimensions of war — when it is permissible to go to war (jus ad bellum) and how war must be conducted (jus in bello) — drawing on historical cases from the Peloponnesian War through Vietnam. Walzer argues against both the realist view that war is beyond moral judgment and the pacifist view that all war is unjust, defending a tradition that takes moral constraints seriously while recognising the genuine complexity of extreme circumstances.

Core passage idea

Paraphrase · Modern copyrighted work

Walzer argues that war is indeed a moral business — that combatants have rights, that civilians have immunity, and that these constraints cannot simply be swept aside by appeals to military necessity without something morally significant being lost.

Walzer's central claim is that moral language is not just rhetorical decoration on war — it tracks something real. Nations and soldiers can act rightly or wrongly in war, and this distinction matters both practically and philosophically, even under conditions of extreme pressure.

To avoid a bubble

Pair with E. H. Carr or Morgenthau for the realist rejection of moral reasoning in international politics, and with Kant's Perpetual Peace for the cosmopolitan alternative to Walzer's state-based framework.

Reading note

Start with Parts I–III for the theoretical framework. The case studies — particularly the analysis of the 1967 Six Day War and the Vietnam war — are models of how to apply moral reasoning to complex political situations without losing precision. The doctrine of supreme emergency (Part IV) — when normal moral constraints can be overridden — is the most controversial and most debated section.

Best paired with

E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis; Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace.

Find this book

Search onlineSearch libraryBuy on Amazon