Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 8 - Two Conceptions of the Proportionality Budget for Jus Ex Bello

  • Edited by Graham Parsons, United States Military Academy, Mark Wilson, Villanova University, Pennsylvania
  • Book:
    How to End a War
    Published online:
    02 March 2023
    Print publication:
    09 March 2023, pp 150-169

  • Summary

    This chapter takes up the debate within jus ex bello about the morality of continuing a war that has reached the limit of its ante bellum proportionality budget. The concept of proportionality implies some kind of equilibrium point between the value pursued and the disvalue created. Conceptions of proportionality in just war theory differ according to how that equilibrium point is understood and justified. This chapter sets out two different conceptions, the impersonal value conception and the personal value conception. The impersonal value conception expresses the ideal of equilibrium in the weights of commensurable impersonal value and disvalue. The personal value conception defines the equilibrium point by a principle that could be justified to those who might suffer and die in the war. I argue that the personal value conception is more restrictive of the harms that may be imposed both initially and when consider whether to continue fighting.