Walzer is a noted social scientist, Jew, and just war theorist controversial for his defense of terrorism. The crib notes is that he argues terrorism can only be justified if a people face annihilation. Ironically he was inspired by WW2 anti-fascist partisanship in making his case - but it has very obvious application in the here and now.
In Michael Walzer's just war theory, a "supreme emergency" is a situation so dire that it justifies the violation of otherwise inviolable rules of war, such as the protection of civilians. Essentially, it's an exception to the usual rules of warfare when the very survival of a community or civilization is at stake.
Key aspects of a supreme emergency, according to Walzer:
Existential Threat:
The situation must pose an existential threat to the community or its way of life, not just a temporary setback.
Barbaric Ruthlessness:
The aggressor must be demonstrating barbaric ruthlessness, undermining the moral foundations of civilized society.
Community-Level Threat:
The threat must be directed against a community, not just a random collection of individuals.
Narrow Definition:
Walzer generally restricts the application of supreme emergency to extreme cases, such as enslavement or extermination, or the imminent danger of destroying a civilizational structure.
Examples:
Walzer has cited the threat of Nazi victory in World War II as a potential example of a supreme emergency, writes the Oxford University Press. He argued that in such a situation, violating normal just war rules might be justified to prevent the loss of the entire community.
Criticisms and Considerations:
Some critics argue that allowing supreme emergency exemptions overemphasizes the value of preserving a community, potentially leading to the misuse of this exception, notes the University of Texas. Others argue that it's impossible to create clear, universal guidelines for determining when a supreme emergency exists, notes the University of Texas. Michael Schwartz and Debra Comer, for instance, argue that religious institutions might not accept violations of jus in bello rules for a supreme emergency, especially if there are inherent rights that are not subject to circumstance.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 9 hoursApr 29, 2025 17:12:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 10 hoursApr 29, 2025 16:53:24 ago (+0/-0)
In Michael Walzer's just war theory, a "supreme emergency" is a situation so dire that it justifies the violation of otherwise inviolable rules of war, such as the protection of civilians. Essentially, it's an exception to the usual rules of warfare when the very survival of a community or civilization is at stake.
Key aspects of a supreme emergency, according to Walzer:
Existential Threat:
The situation must pose an existential threat to the community or its way of life, not just a temporary setback.
Barbaric Ruthlessness:
The aggressor must be demonstrating barbaric ruthlessness, undermining the moral foundations of civilized society.
Community-Level Threat:
The threat must be directed against a community, not just a random collection of individuals.
Narrow Definition:
Walzer generally restricts the application of supreme emergency to extreme cases, such as enslavement or extermination, or the imminent danger of destroying a civilizational structure.
Examples:
Walzer has cited the threat of Nazi victory in World War II as a potential example of a supreme emergency, writes the Oxford University Press.
He argued that in such a situation, violating normal just war rules might be justified to prevent the loss of the entire community.
Criticisms and Considerations:
Some critics argue that allowing supreme emergency exemptions overemphasizes the value of preserving a community, potentially leading to the misuse of this exception, notes the University of Texas.
Others argue that it's impossible to create clear, universal guidelines for determining when a supreme emergency exists, notes the University of Texas.
Michael Schwartz and Debra Comer, for instance, argue that religious institutions might not accept violations of jus in bello rules for a supreme emergency, especially if there are inherent rights that are not subject to circumstance.