Political reconciliation, the rule of law, and truces

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Nir Eisikovits argues in A Theory of Truces that most contemporary conflicts wind down in a much more piecemeal fashion than our theorizing about the morality of ending wars suggests. Pauses in violence are achieved by securing agreement on narrow questions. Moreover, rather than hoping to do away with violence, theorizing would do best, he writes, to take as its starting point the fact of warfare as part of the human condition. Eisikovits aims to articulate the features of truce thinking, a framework that is more descriptively accurate and normatively useful in navigating contemporary conflicts and promoting reconciliation. After summarizing his view, I argue that Eisikovits’ explanation of the contribution of truces to political reconciliation is too narrow; contrary to what he claims, truces can make an important contribution to the rule of law. I also challenge Eisikovits’ characterization of the first feature of truce thinking. I argue that while there is an important present focus on immediate benefits from temporary measures, the future looms much larger than Eisikovits recognizes. Truces matter not only for what they make possible now, but also for their ramifications for prospects for future peace. These ramifications go beyond creating conditions for hope or optimism.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)28-39
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Global Ethics
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2 2017

Fingerprint

constitutional state
reconciliation
violence
warfare
optimism
morality
peace
present
Rule of Law
Truce
Reconciliation

Keywords

  • Rule of law
  • just war theory
  • reconciliation
  • transitional justice
  • truces

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Political reconciliation, the rule of law, and truces. / Murphy, Colleen.

In: Journal of Global Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 1, 02.01.2017, p. 28-39.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c87e8e00ccc14ea9a73861ccb8ef3a3b,
title = "Political reconciliation, the rule of law, and truces",
abstract = "Nir Eisikovits argues in A Theory of Truces that most contemporary conflicts wind down in a much more piecemeal fashion than our theorizing about the morality of ending wars suggests. Pauses in violence are achieved by securing agreement on narrow questions. Moreover, rather than hoping to do away with violence, theorizing would do best, he writes, to take as its starting point the fact of warfare as part of the human condition. Eisikovits aims to articulate the features of truce thinking, a framework that is more descriptively accurate and normatively useful in navigating contemporary conflicts and promoting reconciliation. After summarizing his view, I argue that Eisikovits’ explanation of the contribution of truces to political reconciliation is too narrow; contrary to what he claims, truces can make an important contribution to the rule of law. I also challenge Eisikovits’ characterization of the first feature of truce thinking. I argue that while there is an important present focus on immediate benefits from temporary measures, the future looms much larger than Eisikovits recognizes. Truces matter not only for what they make possible now, but also for their ramifications for prospects for future peace. These ramifications go beyond creating conditions for hope or optimism.",
keywords = "Rule of law, just war theory, reconciliation, transitional justice, truces",
author = "Colleen Murphy",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/17449626.2017.1324509",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "28--39",
journal = "Journal of Global Ethics",
issn = "1744-9626",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Political reconciliation, the rule of law, and truces

AU - Murphy, Colleen

PY - 2017/1/2

Y1 - 2017/1/2

N2 - Nir Eisikovits argues in A Theory of Truces that most contemporary conflicts wind down in a much more piecemeal fashion than our theorizing about the morality of ending wars suggests. Pauses in violence are achieved by securing agreement on narrow questions. Moreover, rather than hoping to do away with violence, theorizing would do best, he writes, to take as its starting point the fact of warfare as part of the human condition. Eisikovits aims to articulate the features of truce thinking, a framework that is more descriptively accurate and normatively useful in navigating contemporary conflicts and promoting reconciliation. After summarizing his view, I argue that Eisikovits’ explanation of the contribution of truces to political reconciliation is too narrow; contrary to what he claims, truces can make an important contribution to the rule of law. I also challenge Eisikovits’ characterization of the first feature of truce thinking. I argue that while there is an important present focus on immediate benefits from temporary measures, the future looms much larger than Eisikovits recognizes. Truces matter not only for what they make possible now, but also for their ramifications for prospects for future peace. These ramifications go beyond creating conditions for hope or optimism.

AB - Nir Eisikovits argues in A Theory of Truces that most contemporary conflicts wind down in a much more piecemeal fashion than our theorizing about the morality of ending wars suggests. Pauses in violence are achieved by securing agreement on narrow questions. Moreover, rather than hoping to do away with violence, theorizing would do best, he writes, to take as its starting point the fact of warfare as part of the human condition. Eisikovits aims to articulate the features of truce thinking, a framework that is more descriptively accurate and normatively useful in navigating contemporary conflicts and promoting reconciliation. After summarizing his view, I argue that Eisikovits’ explanation of the contribution of truces to political reconciliation is too narrow; contrary to what he claims, truces can make an important contribution to the rule of law. I also challenge Eisikovits’ characterization of the first feature of truce thinking. I argue that while there is an important present focus on immediate benefits from temporary measures, the future looms much larger than Eisikovits recognizes. Truces matter not only for what they make possible now, but also for their ramifications for prospects for future peace. These ramifications go beyond creating conditions for hope or optimism.

KW - Rule of law

KW - just war theory

KW - reconciliation

KW - transitional justice

KW - truces

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020685891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020685891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/17449626.2017.1324509

DO - 10.1080/17449626.2017.1324509

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85020685891

VL - 13

SP - 28

EP - 39

JO - Journal of Global Ethics

JF - Journal of Global Ethics

SN - 1744-9626

IS - 1

ER -