IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rfiaxx/v21y2023i2p57-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Jus Post Bellum and the Decision to Withdraw from Afghanistan

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Nikolaus Braun

Abstract

This article makes moral sense of the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. It does so by applying classical just war thinking. The classical bellum justum, it argues, can make a distinctive contribution toward evaluating the decision to leave Afghanistan, a decision that continues to be discussed controversially. The article points out that classical just war thinking did not introduce distinct moral categories beyond jus ad bellum, such as jus in bello or jus post bellum. Exactly because classical just war thinking was meant to apply to all phases of a war, the article goes on to argue, it provides important lessons for just war as a tool of statecraft that seeks to inform political decision-making. Applying the wisdom that is encapsulated in the classical bellum justum to the withdrawal decision in Afghanistan, the article, although it is critical of its execution, generally sides with the Biden administration's course of action.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Nikolaus Braun, 2023. "Jus Post Bellum and the Decision to Withdraw from Afghanistan," The Review of Faith & International Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 57-66, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rfiaxx:v:21:y:2023:i:2:p:57-66
    DOI: 10.1080/15570274.2023.2166731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/15570274.2023.2166731
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/15570274.2023.2166731?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rfiaxx:v:21:y:2023:i:2:p:57-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rfia20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.