Legal Research Quarterly

Legal Research Quarterly

Rereading Kant’s Just War Theory within the Framework of Contemporary International Law (With Emphasis on the Russia–Ukraine War)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Meisam Norouzi 1
Shahram Zarneshan 2
Shabnam sadat Shahtaheri 3
1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran Corresponding Author Email: m.norouzi@basu.ac.ir
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University: Hamadan Branch, Hamadan, Iran
10.48308/jlr.2025.234043.2648
Abstract
Introduction
The concept of a just war is one of the oldest and always controversial topics in political philosophy and international law. This concept has been discussed from the time of ancient Greece and medieval Christian teachings to the thoughts of modern and contemporary thinkers and has always posed a fundamental question to thinkers: Can war, despite its violent and destructive nature, enjoy moral and legal legitimacy in certain circumstances? Among modern philosophers, Immanuel Kant holds a prominent position. In his treatise "Perpetual Peace" and other philosophical writings, he attempted to explain the relationship between war, peace, and international justice and to provide a theoretical framework for limiting the violence resulting from war. In Kant's view, the occurrence of war in international relations is inevitable, but this fact should not be an excuse for departing from moral and legal rules. He considers only those wars that are fought in the context of legitimate defense and compliance with international principles to be legitimate and considers any war with expansionist goals or imposing political will to be absolutely illegitimate. The importance of this issue in today's world, especially in light of the Russia-Ukraine war, has doubled. This crisis, as one of the most important geopolitical events of the 21st century, has once again brought the issue of the legitimacy of war, its moral boundaries, and its legal foundations back to the center of international debate. The present study aims to re-examine Kant's just war theory and examine its effectiveness in explaining the Russia-Ukraine crisis, and is based on the assumption that this theory, despite its valuable capacities, needs to be redefined in light of contemporary conditions.
Methods
The research method in this study is based on a descriptive-analytical approach and has been conducted in a library manner. In the first step, Kant's main works, especially the treatise "Perpetual Peace" and his writings on ethics and natural law, are examined to clarify the theoretical foundations of just war from his perspective. Then, the philosophical and legal interpretations of contemporary thinkers on the theory of just war are collected and analyzed. In the next step, these foundations are adapted within the framework of contemporary international law and an attempt is made to determine the extent to which they are consistent or conflicting with recognized international principles such as the United Nations Charter, humanitarian rules, and the doctrine of self-defense. Finally, the Russia-Ukraine crisis is examined as an objective example to test the effectiveness of Kant's theory in analyzing this war and assessing the legitimacy of the actions of the parties. The reason for choosing this method is to establish a connection between theoretical foundations and legal frameworks on the one hand, and to provide the possibility of analyzing a real and contemporary situation on the other.
Results and Discussions
The findings of the study show that Kant, despite accepting the inevitable reality of war, provides a moral and legal framework to limit it. He divides war into two categories: legitimate and illegitimate. Wars that are waged for the purpose of legitimate self-defense or in support of general principles of international justice are defensible in his view; while wars that are launched for the purpose of expansionism, hegemony, or violation of the rights of nations are illegitimate and morally reprehensible. These criteria, when applied to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, yield significant results. Russia claims that it entered the war to prevent NATO expansion and defend its national security, but this argument is unacceptable in the Kantian framework, because it was accompanied by a clear violation of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. On the other hand, Ukraine, which resists this attack, is initially placed in a position of self-defense, but the prolongation of the war, the expansion of humanitarian consequences, and the widespread use of military means have also raised serious questions about this initial legitimacy. The findings also show that Kant's theory, despite its effectiveness in providing general principles, is not fully adequate for analyzing complex contemporary crises. The emergence of phenomena such as hybrid wars, the presence of non-state actors, the spread of transnational terrorism, cyberwars, and the widespread use of new military technologies have created dimensions that were not foreseeable in Kant's time. These issues challenge the traditional rules of just war and reveal the need to reinterpret this theory. In addition, the findings show that the international community has relied on its own political and security interests in responding to the war in Ukraine rather than relying on Kantian ethical principles. This indicates the gap between theory and practice in international relations. Nevertheless, Kant’s theory can still remain as a valuable framework for critiquing the conflicting claims of the parties and reminding us of the importance of ethics and law in the arena of war.
Conclusion
The conclusion of the research is that Kant’s just war theory, despite its shortcomings and limitations, still provides us with a high capacity for analyzing and evaluating the legitimacy of wars. This theory can serve as a moral and legal framework for policymakers and international institutions and serve as a reminder that even in unavoidable conditions of war, it is necessary to observe moral principles and international rules. However, geopolitical developments and new technologies require that Kantian principles be redefined in accordance with new realities. The innovation of the present research lies in the fact that by linking Kant’s philosophical foundations to one of the most important contemporary crises, namely the Russo-Ukrainian war, it provides a practical model for assessing the legitimacy of war, thus contributing to the enrichment of theoretical and legal debates in international relations.

Highlights

·         The article examines Kant’s theory in relation to the limitation of war and the pursuit of lasting peace.

·         This framework assesses Russia’s actions in the Ukraine war through the criteria of sovereignty, proportionality, and protection of civilians.

·         The study emphasizes the need to revisit Kantian principles in response to contemporary wars.

Keywords
Just War, Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, International Law, Russia&ndash
Ukraine War
Subjects

  1. References

    Books

    1. Frowe, Helen. The Ethics of War and Peace, London: Routledge, 2016.
    2. Kant, I. Perpetual Peace, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1795.
    3. Lazar, Seth, and Helen Frowe (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
    4. May, Larry. War Crimes and Just War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
    5. Moseley, A. Just War Theory, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2004.
    6. Tesón, Fernando R. Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality, New York: Transnational Publishers, Third Editin, 2005.

    Articles

    1. Brown, Gary D. “Proportionality and Just War”, Journal of Military Ethics, Volume 2, Issue 3, 2003, PP 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570310000667

    8.      Crawford, Neta C. “Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War”, Perspectives on Politics, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2003, PP 5–25. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592703000021

    9.      Douglas, Mark. “Changing the Rules: Just War Theory in the Twenty-First Century”, Theology Today, Volume 59, Issue 4, 2003, PP 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/004057360305900402

    10.  Ghaderi, Mostafa, Bahram Mohsenpour, Mir Abdolhossein Naghib-Zadeh and Mohammad Attaran, “Designing a Peace-Oriented Curriculum in Kant’s Philosophy”, Quarterly Journal of Curriculum Studies, Volume 2, Issue 8, 2008, PP 47–81. (In Persian)

    11.  Gillard, Emanuela-Chiara. “Proportionality in the Conduct of Hostilities: The Incidental Harm Side of the Assessment”, Chatham House, 2018, PP 1–32.

    12.  Kadkhoda’ei, Abbas-Ali, “The September 11 Attacks and the New U.S. Approach to Just War Theory”, Journal of Mofid Letter, Volume 8, Issue 33, 2002, PP 89–104. (In Persian)

    13.  Kretzmer, David. “Defence and Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum”, European Journal of International Law, Volume 24, Issue 1, 2013, PP 235–282.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs087

    14.  Lazar, Seth. “The Responsibility Dilemma for Killing in War: A Review Essay”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Volume 38, Issue 2, 2015, PP 180–213.

    15.  Mahmoudi, Sayyed Ali, “Kant’s Perpetual Peace and Its Reflection in Today’s World.” Public Law Research Quarterly, Volume 8, Issue 20, 2006, PP 135–176. (In Persian)

    16.  Mearsheimer, J. “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin”, Foreign Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 5, 2014, PP 77-89.

    17.  Miličić, Nenad. “Kant on Just War and International Order”, Philosophy and Society, Volume 32, Issue 1, 2021, PP 100–125. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2101105M

    18.  Mir-Mohammadi, Ma’soumeh Sadat, “A Comparison between Kant’s Human-Oriented Perpetual Peace and the Just Peace in Shi’a Thinkers’ Ideas”, Journal of Religious Knowledge, Volume 2, Issue 4, 2011, PP 117–146. (In Persian)

    19.  Moellendorf, Darrel. “Jus ex Bello”, Journal of Political Philosophy, Volume 16, Issue 2, 2008, PP 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00310.x 

    20.  Nozari, Hossein Ali and Ali Imani, “Democratic Aspects of the Ideal Political System in Kant’s and Jürgen Habermas’s Political Theories”, Journal of Political Science, Volume 14, Issue 44, 2018, PP 209–235. (In Persian)

    21.  Omidi, Ali and Mehrdad Rashidi Alavijeh, “Media War in the Ukraine Crisis: Framing of Political Developments in Ukraine and Crimea (2013–2015) in CNN and RT”, Quarterly Journal of Modern Media Studies, Volume 3, Issue 10, 2017, PP 142–171. (In Persian) Doi: 10.22054/cs.2017.18255.153.

    22.  Orend, B. “Kant's Just War Theory”, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 37, Issue 2, 1999, PP 323–353. Doi: 10.1353/hph.2008.0847

    23.  Primoratz, Igor. “Michael Walzer’s Just War Theory: Some Issues of Responsibility”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Volume 5, Issue 2, 2002, PP 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016032623634

    24.  Ranjkesh, Mohammad Javad, “An Analysis of the Legitimacy of Holy International War in Thomas Aquinas’s Political Thought”, Quarterly Journal of Public Law Studies, Volume 53, Issue 1,2023,PP 251–266. (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2020.267646.1842

    25.  Shue, Henry. “What Would a Justified Preventive Military Attack Look Like?”, In: Shu, Henry and David Rodin (eds.), Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, PP 222–246.  

    26.  Yaghouti, Mohammad Mahdi, “Legal Exceptions to the Prohibition of the Use of Force in International Relations”, Foreign Policy Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 4, 2011, PP 113–132. (In Persian)

    27.  Yaspers, Karl, “Politics and History in Kant’s Thought”, Translated by: Mahbod Irani Talab, Bi-Quarterly Journal of  Political-Economic Information, Volumes 88–89, 1994, PP 28–35. (In Persian)

    28.  Zamani, Nasser, “Analysis of the Roots and Nature of the Ukraine Crisis: Escalation of a Cold War-like Tension between Russia and the West”, Foreign Policy Quarterly, Volume 27, Issue 4, 2013, PP 889–918. (In Persian)

     

  • Receive Date 29 January 2024
  • Revise Date 25 July 2025
  • Accept Date 07 September 2025