What Brian Orend Actually Argues About Just War
I picked up The Morality Of War Brian Orend a few years back when I was trying to get my head around why certain conflicts get international support while others don't. The book isn't as flashy as some political philosophy texts, but it's thorough and the framework holds up better than most. Orend works within the just war tradition, specifically modernizing it for contemporary conflicts. His central claim is that war can sometimes be morally justified, but only under strict conditions. He breaks this down into two main phases: jus ad bellum (the justice of going to war) and jus in bello (justice during war). One thing most people miss about his approach is how he handles non-state actors. Traditional just war theory was built around nation-states fighting each other. Orend pushes into territory like counter-terrorism operations and humanitarian interventions, which makes his work more relevant now than when it was first published.
The Core Framework
Under jus ad bellum, Orend lays out criteria that need to be met before a war is morally legitimate. Last resort is a big one - you can't just decide military action makes sense when diplomacy hasn't even been attempted. There's also proper authority, meaning the decision has to come from a legitimate governing body, not some general with ambitions. Probability of success matters too. I remember reading a section where he discussed how launching a campaign you probably can't win is actually immoral, not just impractical. That struck me as an important point that gets overlooked in real politics way too often. For jus in bello, the focus shifts to how wars are fought. Proportionality is key here - the harm caused has to be proportionate to the good achieved. Discrimination is another principle requiring combatants to distinguish between military targets and civilians.
I ran into an interesting edge case once when applying this to drone warfare debates. The remote nature of drone strikes creates distance between operator and target, which changes how discrimination and proportionality get assessed in practice. My workaround was to focus on the actual targeting process and intelligence quality rather than just the platform being used.
Get the Full Details
Where Orend's Arguments Need Work
No framework is perfect, and Orend's has its blind spots. The biggest issue I see is how his criteria get applied differently depending on who's making the assessment. Two countries can look at the same conflict and reach opposite conclusions about whether last resort was truly exhausted. His treatment of self-determination gets a bit thin when dealing with indigenous populations or occupied territories. The book focuses heavily on state-level conflicts and doesn't always account for power imbalances that exist within regions. Also worth noting: Orend assumes a certain level of good faith from governments. That assumption doesn't hold up well in situations where leaders have clear incentives to exaggerate threats or manipulate public opinion into supporting military action.
If you're coming at this from a pacifist angle, his work might frustrate you. He's not arguing for endless peace - he's arguing that war can be necessary sometimes. But the bar he sets is deliberately high, which should satisfy most people looking for moral guidance on conflict. I'd recommend pairing his book with some case studies. Reading about specific conflicts while keeping his criteria in mind will show you how messy real-world application gets compared to the clean framework on paper.
