Open research questions in War, Ethics, and Justification

What the literature leaves open

• 2) Beitz, C. R. (1979). Political https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691225975 theory and international relations. Princeton University Press. 3) Caney, S. (2005). Justice beyond borders: A global political theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019829350X.001.0001 4) Clausewitz, C. von. (1984). On war (M. Howard & P. Paret, Eds. & Trans.). Princeton University Press. 5) De Coning, C. (2022). Adaptive peacebuilding and complexity in contemporary conflict environments. International Affairs, 98(3), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac045 6) Duffield, M. (2001). Global governance and the new wars: The merging of development and security. Zed Books.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• The article first demonstrated that war is not simply the breakdown of political order but often one of its most organized institutional expressions. Modern warfare depends upon systems of political authority capable of mobilizing economic resources, technological infrastructures, ideological narratives, and institutional legitimacy. Contemporary armed conflict therefore reflects not only strategic competition among states but also broader struggles over geopolitical influence and institutional control within the global order. The analysis further showed that structural inequalities embedded within the global political economy significantly shape the conditions under which conflict emerges. Unequal access to resources, technological systems, financial networks, and institutional influence contributes to geopolitical asymmetries that intensify insecurity and competition among political actors. In this respect, contemporary warfare increasingly reflects tensions associated with globalization, economic dependency, strategic vulnerability, and institutional exclusion. The article also critically examined recent debates in just war theory concerning individual moral responsibility. While analytic approaches to war ethics have made important contributions by emphasizing questions of liability, proportionality, and civilian protection, the discussion argued that ethical analysis centered exclusively on individual conduct remains incomplete. Political violence emerges within institutional systems shaped by structural inequality, geopolitical pressures, and global asymmetries of power. Consequently, understanding war requires integrating moral evaluation with broader analyses of political authority and institutional organization. Building upon this argument, the article connected contemporary debates on war ethics to broader theories of global justice. International institutions do not simply regulate cooperation among sovereign states; they also shape the distribution of opportunities, vulnerabilities, and political capacities across societies. Structural inequalities embedded within systems of global governance may therefore contribute indirectly to the persistence of political instability and armed conflict. War should thus be understood not merely as an episodic military event but also as a phenomenon rooted in broader systems of institutional power and structural injustice. Importantly, the structural perspective developed throughout this article does not claim that economic inequality or institutional asymmetry mechanically causes war. Armed conflict remains a multidimensional phenomenon influenced by historical experiences, ideological tensions, political leadership, strategic calculations, cultural dynamics, and regional conditions.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• A third criticism concerns moral responsibility. Some scholars may argue that structural approaches risk weakening individual accountability by attributing violence primarily to abstract institutional systems rather than to concrete political actors. Analytic just war theorists such as McMahan (2009) emphasize that ethical evaluation must ultimately focus on the actions and decisions of individuals participating in warfare. According to this perspective, moral responsibility cannot be displaced onto impersonal structures without undermining ethical judgment itself. This concern raises an important ethical challenge. However, the structural perspective advanced in this article does not reject the importance of individual moral responsibility. Instead, it argues that ethical analysis must operate simultaneously at multiple levels. Individuals make decisions within institutional environments shaped by geopolitical pressures, economic asymmetries, ideological narratives, and systems of political authority. Understanding these broader structural conditions does not eliminate personal accountability; rather, it provides a more comprehensive explanation of the contexts within which political violence emerges. Young’s (2011) theory of structural responsibility is particularly relevant in this respect. Young argues that responsibility for injustice may arise not only through direct personal actions but also through participation in institutional systems that collectively reproduce harmful social conditions. Applied to the context of war, this perspective suggests that responsibility for political violence extends beyond military actors to include institutional arrangements, global economic systems, and political structures that contribute to instability, exclusion, and geopolitical vulnerability. Similarly, Fassin (2021) argues that contemporary violence often operates through broader moral economies involving institutional legitimacy, humanitarian discourse, and political normalization. Violence is therefore not only a matter of direct coercion but also of the institutional frameworks through which insecurity, exclusion, and vulnerability are socially organized and politically justified. Another limitation of the structural account concerns empirical variation across conflicts. Contemporary wars differ significantly in their historical origins, ideological dimensions, regional contexts, and geopolitical dynamics. Some conflicts emerge from territorial disputes, others from ethnic fragmentation, state collapse, religious polarization, or struggles over political legitimacy. No single theoretical framework can fully explain every form of political violence across all historical and geographical conditions. This limitation underscores the importance of interdisciplinary analysis.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• interpreting war solely as the consequence of interstate rivalry, strategic insecurity, or individual moral failure, the article has argued that contemporary conflict must also be understood in relation to broader structures of geopolitical vulnerability, economic dependency, and institutional exclusion embedded within the global order. Nevertheless, this structural perspective raises several important theoretical questions. Critics may argue that emphasizing institutional inequality risks overstating the explanatory role of economic and political structures while underestimating the importance of strategic decision-making, ideological conflict, nationalism, and individual agency. Addressing these concerns is essential for clarifying both the analytical scope and the normative implications of the argument developed in this study. One of the most influential criticisms emerges from realist approaches to international relations. Realist theorists contend that war is fundamentally rooted in the anarchic character of the international system rather than in structural injustice or economic inequality (Waltz, 1979). Since no centralized global authority possesses sufficient coercive power to guarantee security for all states, political communities exist within a condition of strategic uncertainty. Under such conditions, military competition becomes an unavoidable feature of international politics. From the realist perspective, armed conflict emerges primarily because states must continually protect sovereignty and ensure survival in an environment characterized by geopolitical competition. Even if global economic inequalities were substantially reduced, realists argue that strategic rivalry would persist because insecurity is structurally embedded within the international system itself. This criticism identifies an important dimension of contemporary geopolitics. Strategic competition undoubtedly remains central to international relations. However, the structural perspective developed in this article does not deny the significance of military insecurity or geopolitical rivalry. Rather, it argues that contemporary forms of strategic competition increasingly operate through broader institutional and economic systems associated with globalization, technological interdependence, and transnational governance. In the contemporary international order, states do not compete solely through military capabilities. Geopolitical influence increasingly depends upon access to technological infrastructures, financial systems, energy networks, digital platforms, strategic resources, and global supply chains. Political authority therefore operates through institutional systems extending beyond traditional territorial sovereignty.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• Pogge’s (2008) theory of global institutional injustice is particularly significant for the argument developed in this article. According to Pogge, international economic structures actively contribute to the persistence of poverty, dependency, and unequal development across societies. Trade systems, financial arrangements, and global governance institutions do not merely regulate cooperation among states; they also shape the distribution of opportunities, resources, and political influence within the international order. Structural inequality therefore becomes embedded within the institutional architecture of globalization itself. From the perspective developed in this article, these structural inequalities are closely connected to the persistence of war. Economic marginalization, unequal access to resources, institutional exclusion, and geopolitical dependency may intensify tensions that increase the likelihood of violent conflict. Societies experiencing long-term structural disadvantage often face weakened institutional legitimacy, social fragmentation, economic instability, and political vulnerability. Under such conditions, armed conflict becomes more likely not simply because of individual political decisions, but because structural environments generate instability and geopolitical competition. This relationship between structural inequality and conflict is particularly visible in contemporary geopolitical tensions surrounding energy security, technological sovereignty, trade dependency, digital infrastructures, and strategic supply chains. Competition over critical resources and institutional influence increasingly shapes relations among states within the global economy. Military conflict is therefore often connected to broader struggles concerning economic positioning and geopolitical influence within international systems of power. Critical social theorists have further emphasized that structural violence may persist even in the absence of direct military confrontation. Galtung (1969) argues that institutional systems can systematically reproduce deprivation, exclusion, and unequal life conditions across populations. From this perspective, violence should not be understood solely as direct physical harm but also as the outcome of structural arrangements that limit human flourishing and reinforce social vulnerability. Structural inequalities embedded within global political and economic systems may therefore contribute indirectly to the conditions under which armed conflict emerges. Similarly, Young’s (2011) theory of structural injustice emphasizes that responsibility for harmful social conditions cannot always be reduced to isolated individual actions. Institutional systems themselves may generate patterns of exclusion and vulnerability that contribute to broader forms of political instability and social conflict.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• This article therefore argues for a more integrated understanding of war ethics. Questions concerning individual moral responsibility should be connected to broader analyses of political authority, global inequality, institutional power, and structural injustice. Such an approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of why armed conflicts continue to emerge within the contemporary international system. Understanding war through this broader framework also has important implications for peacebuilding and conflict prevention. If political violence is connected to institutional inequalities and structural asymmetries, then reducing warfare requires more than regulating military behavior or enforcing international humanitarian law. Sustainable peace also depends upon addressing the structural conditions that generate political instability, economic marginalization, geopolitical vulnerability, and institutional exclusion. In this respect, war ethics and global justice should not be treated as separate areas of inquiry. The moral evaluation of violence is closely connected to the institutional organization of the global political economy and the distribution of power within the international order. A comprehensive social science approach to war therefore requires integrating ethical analysis with critical examination of the structural environments that shape political conflict. The following section further develops this argument by examining how global justice theory and institutional inequality contribute to understanding the persistence of war within the contemporary global order. 6. Global Justice, Structural Inequality, and the Persistence of War Debates concerning global justice have become increasingly important for understanding the structural dimensions of contemporary armed conflict. In a highly interconnected international system, political violence cannot be separated from the institutional arrangements that shape global distributions of power, economic opportunity, technological capacity, and geopolitical influence. The persistence of war in the modern world is therefore closely related not only to military competition or strategic rivalry among states, but also to broader systems of structural inequality embedded within the global political economy. Contemporary theories of global justice differ significantly in how they interpret the moral significance of international inequality. One influential perspective emphasizes the continued importance of state sovereignty and national political autonomy. From this viewpoint, principles of distributive justice apply primarily within domestic political communities rather than across the global system. International institutions are therefore understood mainly as frameworks for cooperation among sovereign states rather than mechanisms for achieving global equality.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• command structures or state authority. Similarly, Rodin (2002) criticizes traditional analogies between national self-defense and individual self-defense, arguing that states cannot automatically claim moral legitimacy simply by appealing to sovereign interests. These critiques have contributed significantly to contemporary war ethics by emphasizing the importance of personal moral accountability. Questions concerning civilian immunity, military obedience, proportionality, and combatant liability have become central issues in contemporary debates on the morality of war. Ethical analysis increasingly recognizes that participation in violence cannot be morally justified solely through obedience to institutional authority. However, despite its important contributions, an exclusive focus on individual liability risks narrowing the broader social and structural understanding of armed conflict. Questions concerning whether individual soldiers are morally justified in participating in warfare generally arise only after political conflict has already escalated into organized violence. Ethical analysis centered exclusively on individual actions may therefore overlook the institutional and structural conditions that make war possible in the first place. Modern warfare does not emerge solely from isolated moral decisions made by individuals. Armed conflict occurs within institutional systems shaped by political authority, economic inequality, geopolitical competition, ideological narratives, and global power relations. Soldiers, political leaders, and civilian populations operate within structures that strongly influence available choices, political perceptions, and strategic behavior. Consequently, moral responsibility in war cannot be fully understood without considering the broader institutional environments within which political violence occurs. This structural perspective does not reject the importance of individual ethics. Rather, it situates individual responsibility within wider systems of institutional power and social organization. Military institutions, security discourses, geopolitical alliances, economic interests, and nationalist narratives all shape the conditions under which individuals participate in war. Ethical responsibility therefore exists simultaneously at multiple interconnected levels: the individual level, the institutional level, and the structural level of global political and economic systems. Young’s (2011) theory of structural responsibility provides an important framework for understanding this broader conception of moral accountability. According to Young, responsibility for injustice should not be understood exclusively through direct personal causation.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• Mbembe’s (2003) concept of necropolitics further expands this discussion by emphasizing how contemporary political authority increasingly operates through the management of insecurity, vulnerability, and exposure to harm. In contexts of geopolitical competition, populations may become subject to forms of economic insecurity, infrastructural instability, technological exclusion, and institutional marginalization shaped by broader systems of global power. Contemporary warfare therefore involves not only direct military violence but also institutional arrangements that regulate access to security, mobility, resources, and political recognition. Similarly, Galtung’s (1969) concept of structural violence remains highly relevant for understanding the relationship between inequality and conflict. Violence may operate not only through direct physical coercion but also through institutional systems that systematically reproduce deprivation, exclusion, and unequal life conditions. Structural inequalities embedded within global political and economic systems may therefore contribute indirectly to the conditions under which geopolitical tensions intensify and armed conflict becomes more likely. Importantly, the structural perspective developed in this article does not claim that economic inequality automatically or mechanically causes war. Armed conflict remains a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by historical experiences, ideological struggles, political leadership, strategic calculations, cultural dynamics, and regional conditions. However, structural inequalities function as critical background conditions that intensify geopolitical competition, institutional fragility, and political insecurity within the contemporary international order. This distinction is essential for avoiding simplistic forms of economic determinism. Contemporary warfare cannot be reduced solely to struggles over material resources or capitalist competition. Military conflicts are shaped by complex interactions among nationalism, political ideology, technological transformation, institutional legitimacy, and geopolitical strategy. Nevertheless, these dimensions increasingly operate within broader systems of global political economy characterized by unequal distributions of power and institutional influence. The structural account developed here also has important implications for understanding contemporary peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Traditional approaches frequently emphasize military deterrence, diplomatic negotiation, or humanitarian intervention after violence has already emerged. While such mechanisms remain important, they may prove insufficient if broader structural inequalities and institutional asymmetries remain unchanged.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• international order, warfare increasingly reflects tensions embedded within systems of global political economy characterized by inequality, interdependence, technological competition, and institutional asymmetry. Economic globalization has transformed the nature of political power and international conflict. Contemporary states are deeply interconnected through trade systems, financial institutions, technological infrastructures, energy networks, transportation corridors, and global supply chains. These forms of interdependence have expanded economic integration across national borders, yet they have not produced equal distributions of power or opportunity. Instead, globalization has frequently reinforced structural disparities between economically dominant states and politically vulnerable societies (Fraser, 2009). One of the most significant dimensions of the political economy of war is the unequal distribution of economic and technological capacity among states. Economically powerful societies generally possess greater access to advanced technologies, financial infrastructures, strategic resources, and global institutional influence. By contrast, economically marginalized states often remain dependent upon external markets, debt structures, foreign investment systems, technological imports, and resource extraction economies. These asymmetries influence not only patterns of economic development but also forms of geopolitical vulnerability and institutional insecurity. The relationship between political economy, property relations, and conflict has long occupied an important position within critical social theory. Critical approaches increasingly argue that legal and economic institutions are not politically neutral arrangements, but mechanisms shaping distributions of power, exclusion, and geopolitical vulnerability within the global order (Quoc & Y, 2026). Marx (1976) argued that political struggles are deeply connected to systems of economic power and material organization. Contemporary political economy scholars have further emphasized that global capitalism generates uneven forms of accumulation, dependency, and geopolitical competition (Harvey, 2003; Piketty, 2020). From this perspective, warfare cannot be understood solely as a strategic or military phenomenon; it is also shaped by institutional struggles over economic influence, resource control, and geopolitical positioning within the global order. Competition over strategic resources has become particularly significant in the twenty-first century. Access to energy reserves, rare earth minerals, digital infrastructures, trade routes, semiconductor technologies, and global communication systems increasingly shapes international relations and geopolitical rivalry.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• power increasingly operates through interconnected networks involving international organizations, financial systems, technological infrastructures, trade regimes, and security alliances (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2023). These institutional structures significantly influence how political authority is exercised. Access to global markets, technological resources, strategic supply chains, and international financial systems affects the capacity of states to maintain economic stability and geopolitical influence. Consequently, contemporary warfare cannot be adequately understood solely through military strategy or national security concerns. Armed conflict increasingly reflects tensions embedded within broader institutional arrangements of global governance and political economy. Critical scholars in security studies and political economy have increasingly emphasized the structural dimensions of contemporary warfare. Duffield (2001) argues that globalization has transformed the relationship between development, security, and political violence. According to this perspective, modern conflicts are often connected to broader systems of global governance that regulate populations through overlapping mechanisms of security, humanitarian intervention, and economic control. Similarly, Kaldor (2012) contends that contemporary “new wars” differ from traditional interstate warfare because they emerge within contexts shaped by globalization, fragmented sovereignty, transnational networks, and asymmetrical forms of violence. The institutional character of modern warfare is also closely connected to broader structures of inequality and geopolitical asymmetry. Harvey (2003) argues that global capitalism generates uneven distributions of economic and political power that contribute to geopolitical instability. Contemporary political authority is therefore deeply intertwined with processes of economic accumulation, resource competition, and institutional domination. States do not simply compete militarily; they also compete for technological superiority, financial influence, energy security, and strategic positioning within global economic systems. Mbembe’s (2003) concept of necropolitics further expands this discussion by examining how political authority increasingly operates through the management of life, death, and insecurity. From this perspective, contemporary forms of warfare are closely linked to systems of exclusion, vulnerability, and institutionalized violence embedded within global structures of power. Armed conflict becomes not merely a military phenomenon, but also a mechanism through which political authority regulates populations and maintains geopolitical hierarchies. This broader structural perspective is particularly relevant in the context of contemporary geopolitical tensions.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• Fourth, the study adopts an interdisciplinary analytical orientation. Contemporary warfare increasingly involves interconnected forms of military, technological, economic, informational, and institutional power. As a result, no single disciplinary framework is sufficient for explaining the complexity of modern armed conflict. The article therefore integrates insights from political philosophy, ethics, international relations, global justice theory, and critical social analysis in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of war as a structural phenomenon. Importantly, this article does not claim that structural inequality functions as a deterministic or universal cause of war. Armed conflict remains a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by historical experiences, ideological tensions, political leadership, cultural dynamics, regional conditions, and strategic calculations. The structural approach developed here instead argues that institutional inequalities and asymmetrical distributions of power create conditions that intensify geopolitical competition, political instability, and social vulnerability within the global order. This methodological orientation also reflects an important distinction between direct causation and structural conditioning. The article does not argue that institutional inequality automatically produces violence. Rather, structural conditions shape the environments within which political actors operate, influencing the range of available choices, strategic pressures, and geopolitical tensions that may contribute to conflict escalation. Structural injustice therefore functions not as a singular causal mechanism, but as part of a broader institutional context shaping contemporary political violence. The methodological goal of the article is therefore explanatory, interpretive, and critical rather than predictive. The study seeks to demonstrate that prevailing approaches to war remain incomplete if they fail to account for the institutional structures and global inequalities that shape geopolitical relations in the contemporary world. By integrating conceptual analysis, normative inquiry, critical institutional interpretation, and interdisciplinary social theory, the article develops a framework capable of connecting debates concerning war ethics with broader discussions of global justice, political economy, and structural inequality. Ultimately, the methodological approach adopted in this article supports the broader argument that war should be understood not merely as an episodic military event or a consequence of isolated moral decisions, but as a phenomenon deeply connected to the institutional organization of the contemporary global order. 3.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• infrastructures, debt regimes, and resource governance structures do not simply regulate cooperation among states; they also shape patterns of inequality and geopolitical asymmetry within the international order. From this perspective, contemporary warfare cannot be understood solely as the consequence of isolated military aggression or strategic rivalry among sovereign states. Armed conflict frequently emerges within broader institutional environments characterized by structural inequality, economic dependency, geopolitical exclusion, and competition over strategic resources. Modern wars are increasingly connected to struggles involving energy security, technological sovereignty, financial influence, digital infrastructures, global supply chains, and transnational systems of power. Critical approaches to security and political economy have further emphasized that violence often operates not only through direct military confrontation but also through institutional structures that systematically reproduce insecurity, marginalization, and unequal vulnerability (Galtung, 1969; Duffield, 2001; Mbembe, 2003). Contemporary forms of warfare therefore reflect broader tensions embedded within the organization of global political and economic systems. This article develops a structural account of war grounded in political philosophy, global justice theory, critical social analysis, and international political economy. It argues that war should not be understood merely as the result of individual moral failure, state aggression, or geopolitical rivalry. Rather, armed conflict must also be interpreted as a phenomenon shaped by institutional inequality and structural injustice embedded within the contemporary global order. The article proceeds in several stages. First, it outlines the methodological framework guiding the analysis. Second, it examines the relationship between war, political authority, and institutional power. Third, it analyzes the political economy of war and the role of structural inequality in shaping geopolitical instability. Fourth, it evaluates contemporary debates concerning individual moral responsibility in war. Fifth, it connects these ethical discussions to broader theories of global justice and institutional inequality. Sixth, it addresses several critiques and limitations of the structural account developed throughout the article. Finally, the article considers the implications of this framework for peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and global governance in the twenty-first century. Ultimately, the article argues that understanding contemporary warfare requires moving beyond narrow military or state-centered explanations toward a broader interdisciplinary framework capable of integrating ethics, political economy, institutional analysis, and global justice theory.

  War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · 2026 · DOI

• It draws attention to previously neglected or understudied but crucial aspects of wartime legitimacy, eminently the role of recognition by foreign powers, the rhetoric of the ‘Big Three’ Allies regarding post-war Europe, and the relevance of democratic legitimacy as a powerful antidote to civil conflict during the period of transition into peacetime.

  Antidote to Civil War? · 2018 · DOI

• The author suggests that Agamben?s concept of ?effectivity? through ?special actions? which mark one?s belonging to a particular community or profession is a useful conceptual strategy to explore the compatibility of drone warfare with traditional military ethics; this strategy shows mixed results at best.

  The ethics of drone warfare · 2017 · DOI

• This article explores how the United States has moved from a culture of militarism, which was limited to the military values associated with the military, to a more pervasive culture of militarization, with its belief in force and violence as a dominant mediating and structuring force for the whole of social life.

  Militarism's Killing Fields: From Gaza to Ferguson · 2014 · DOI

• Yet I have argued in the past (initially against Judith Jarvis Thomson, but also against McMahan) that it is insufficient, and misleading, to think about warfare and its moral assessment in merely individualistic terms.

  Double Effect and Double Intention: A Collectivist Perspective · 2007 · DOI

• In Section 3 I argue that even if considerations from Section 2 are insufficient to establish that we must dismantle our war‐machines, facts about war which conflict with MSP do establish that we must never use them.

  Making Pacifism Plausible · 2000 · DOI

• 49 In the second place, the right of indemnity and reparation from those actually guilty by the above standard is limited by the rights of the innocent in the con- quered nation.

  The Meaning of Non-Combatant Immunity in the Just War/Limited War Tradition · 1971 · DOI

• Al- though the trend toward overcoming the weakness of the traditional Japanese concept of peace is still limited to a small sector of society, if it can become so strong that the people’s wish for peace can dictate government policy so as to realize the spirit of the Constitu- tion, which says in its Preamble: ’never again shall we be visited with the hor- rors of war through the action of govern- ment’, then can the Japanese have a great future.

  Beyond the Traditional Concepts of Peace in Different Cultures · 1969 · DOI

• &dquo; ( 11 ) Quasi-Private: &dquo;Cases which are equivocal internal wars because the violence was not initially directed at the government, or which appear not to be anti-government because of insufficient information. Further research on different sets of data is certainly needed to approach a decision on this question.

  Dimensions of conflict behavior within nations, 1946 - 59 · 1966 · DOI

• improve talking book use are (1) wider use of it in 3 and 4 grade levels, when it is increased use of most effective, (2) (3) sound effects and dramatization, use when volume of im reading is increased use with pupils portant, (4) below 90 I. Q. and (5) increased use both inside and outside of classroom. (Beatress Trum - Hunter, Newark, New Jersey). WARRIORS WITHOUT WEAPONS: A Study of the Society and Person ality of the Pine Ridge Sioux, Gor don Macgregor, University of Chi 228 pp. cago Press, Chicago, 1946.

  Review: Warriors Without Weapons · 1946 · DOI

• improve (1) need to im braille reading are prove instructional methods, with greater stress on rate and compre hension, (2) elimination of grade 1 Y2 and the introduction of grade 2 at an earlier age.

  Review: Warriors Without Weapons · 1946 · DOI

• -Land material is to be limited by Axing maximum annual expenditure for it; naval material is to be limited both as regards expenditure and quantity-both global and category tonnage limits are to be Axed, with a few minor transfer privileges for surface tonnage of small fleets; airplanes are to be limited in number and horsepower, but air expenditure is not.

  Disarmament: From Versailles to Geneva · 1932 · DOI

• Abstract The Ottoman alliance politics before the Great War has not been explored for theorizing alliance politics though it presents a unique example of alliance formation under external threat.

  Balance of Power or Balance of Threat: Revisiting Ottoman Alliance Politics before the Great War · 2018 · DOI

• This article briefly introduces three strands in the economics literature on civil war—causes, consequences and solutions—and identifies potential gaps in the existing literature which may be useful to students who are keen on pursuing further research on the subject.

  Economics of Civil War · 2016 · DOI

Most-cited papers in War, Ethics, and Justification

• What Is Civil War? · Journal of Conflict Resolution · 2004 · 429 citations
• How and when armed conflicts end: Introducing the UCDP Conflict Termination dataset · Journal of Peace Research · 2010 · 420 citations
• Drafting Support for War: Conscription and Mass Support for Warfare · The Journal of Politics · 2011 · 78 citations
• Materialist, cultural and biological theories on why Yanomami make war · Anthropological Theory · 2001 · 39 citations
• A Divided Discipline? Mapping Peace and Conflict Studies · International Studies Perspectives · 2018 · 30 citations
• Crimes of Dispassion: Autonomous Weapons and the Moral Challenge of Systematic Killing · Ethics & International Affairs · 2023 · 29 citations
• Deferral and dispersal: The military violence of post-war clean-up · Human Organization · 2025 · 25 citations
• Is War Becoming Obsolete? A Sociological Analysis · The Sociological Review · 2014 · 25 citations
• What is Doctrine? · Journal of Strategic Studies · 2011 · 21 citations
• Forum: Conflict Delegation in Civil Wars · International Studies Review · 2021 · 19 citations

Most recent work

• Vulnerable (im)mobilities between imperial legacies and colonial logics of war · Mobilities · 2026
• Just Peace or Just War? Theological, Ethical and Technological Reflections on Armed Conflict · Religions · 2026
• Ethics Versus War: Reply to Abbasian and Lucas · Journal of Bioethical Inquiry · 2026
• Between the lines: Naming mental suffering in armed conflict in the ICRC Library · International Review of the Red Cross · 2026
• The theory of just war of modern scholasticism and its relevance for the Baltic states in troubled times · Studies in East European Thought · 2026
• War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · 2026
• Idolatry, Demons and Powers · Journal of Reformed Theology · 2026
• Between Qualification and Overvaluation of Government Authority · Journal of Reformed Theology · 2026
• Helping Parents Explain War to Children: Simplification and Modulated Disclosure · Child Psychiatry & Human Development · 2026
• Communal relational danger in Latin American combat traditions · Journal of the Philosophy of Sport · 2026

Related topics in Arts and Humanities