Do the Weak Have a Right to Fight the Strong? Moral Absolutes and the Probability of Success

The jus ad bellum requirement of the probability of success can be perceived as an unjust requirement which prohibits the weaker side of a potential or actual military conflict from committing itself to organized violence, even to defend and protect its own survival. This view of the probability of success as an unjust requirement, however, need only be held if: (1) the goal of the weaker state is survival itself. In cases when (1) is true, the requirement should be considered void. On the other hand, if: (2) survival is not considered an overriding factor, then the requirement stands. This paper explores the latter position using the example of the famous Melian Dialogue from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, and applies it to the question of Ukraine’s right to war and their government’s possible moral obligation to negotiate in their current defensive war against Russia. ---------------------------------------- Received: 26/04/2024. Reviewed: 12/06/2024. Accepted: 5/11/2024.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Studia Philosophiae Christianae
Published
2024-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21697/spch.2024.60.a.11
Primary Topic
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do the Weak Have a Right to Fight the Strong? Moral Absolutes and the Probability of Success

Stipe Buzar
Studia Philosophiae Christianae
Political Philosophy and Ethics
article

Do the Weak Have a Right to Fight the Strong? Moral Absolutes and the Probability of Success

Stipe Buzar
article en

Abstract

The jus ad bellum requirement of the probability of success can be perceived as an unjust requirement which prohibits the weaker side of a potential or actual military conflict from committing itself to organized violence, even to defend and protect its own survival. This view of the probability of success as an unjust requirement, however, need only be held if: (1) the goal of the weaker state is survival itself. In cases when (1) is true, the requirement should be considered void. On the other hand, if: (2) survival is not considered an overriding factor, then the requirement stands. This paper explores the latter position using the example of the famous Melian Dialogue from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, and applies it to the question of Ukraine’s right to war and their government’s possible moral obligation to negotiate in their current defensive war against Russia. ---------------------------------------- Received: 26/04/2024. Reviewed: 12/06/2024. Accepted: 5/11/2024.

Studia Philosophiae ChristianaeVol. 60(2)
University of Zagreb (HR), Libertas International University (HR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Political Philosophy and Ethics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.