<정의연영어에세이대회>란?
21세기 현대사회에서 '전쟁'은 더 이상 먼 나라의 이야기가 아닙니다. 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁, 중동 분쟁, 한반도의 긴장까지. 전쟁은 인권 문제와 직결되며, 지금 우리의 해석과 응답이 필요합니다.
정의기억연대는 청소년들이 전쟁와 인권 문제를 성찰하고, 글로벌 시민으로서 평화 감수성을 기를 수 있도록 <정의연영어에세이대회>를 개최하였습니다.
제1회 <정의연영어에세이대회> 소개
제1회 대회는 "Is there a justifiable war?"(정당한 전쟁은 있는가)를 주제로, 한국 국적을 가진 미국 학제 기준 9~12학년(중학교 3학년~고등학교 3학년) 청소년들의 에세이를 모집하였습니다.
금상 1명, 은상 2명, 동상 3명, 파이널리스트 2명, 총 8분이 수상하였습니다.
이번 활동보고에서는 금상 수상자 이모음(글로벌선진 음성 11학년)님의 에세이를 소개하고자 합니다!
Is there a justifiable war?
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has resulted in widespread civilian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure, forcing millions to flee to neighboring countries. Despite these consequences, both nations continue their conflict, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. Furthermore, while wars are often justified on grounds of protecting sovereignty or ensuring justice, it is critical to examine whether these justifications hold under the long-term human, social, and economic costs of conflict. Highlighting historical and modern examples, this essay seeks to challenge the notion that war can ever be truly justifiable.
Michael Walzer (1977)’s Just and Unjust Wars provides a modern framework for evaluating the justifiability of war. He argues that wars can be justifiable if they adhere to two principles: jus ad bellum (the right to go to war, based on just cause and legitimate authority) and jus in bello (the right conduct during war, focusing on proportionality and discrimination). However, critics like McMahan (2006) note that “it is perfectly possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance with the rules” (p. 23), highlighting the limitations of this framework. Additionally, Swain (2024) further argues that no war is justifiable, emphasizing that war inevitably leads to the disproportionate loss of civilian lives and long-term societal and psychological harm. These critics highlight that, regardless of intentions, war’s destructive nature renders its justification untenable in practice.
This essay supports the claim that war is not justifiable by addressing three critical factors: (1) the sacrifices of innocent civilian lives, (2) the pyrrhic nature of many victories, and (3) the enduring social and psychological damage caused by war. By drawing on historical examples, including the Holocaust, and both World Wars, this essay argues that war’s justifiability is fundamentally flawed.
The indiscriminate nature of war
Engaging in war inevitably places the lives of innocent civilians at risk, raising profound ethical concerns about the morality of sacrificing noncombatants who have no voluntary involvement in the conflict. One critical issue surrounding civilian casualties is the deliberate use of civilians as military assets, often without their consent, as a strategy in modern warfare. During the 2006 Lebanon War, Hamas reportedly employed civilians as 'human shields' to deter attacks from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In response, the IDF argued that responsibility for civilian casualties lay with Hamas for employing such tactics, though this justification remains contentious (Lazar, 2017). However, as Lazar (2017) notes, the IDF was aware that their actions would inevitably endanger civilian lives, raising questions about their accountability in such operations. Additionally, McMahan (2006) argues that if one side in a conflict uses unjust tactics, such as deliberately attacking civilians, civilians defending themselves may inadvertently provide the opposing side with a rationale to target them, further complicating the moral framework of warfare. Ambiguities in wartime regulations often allow unjust combatants to exploit loopholes, enabling them to rationalize actions resulting in civilian casualties. Despite acknowledging that war is not the only means of conflict resolution, many nations have prioritized military spending over diplomacy, a trend exemplified by the global response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Swain, 2024). By framing their actions as 'justifiable' and prioritizing military expenditures, nations perpetuate cycles of civilian casualties in warfare, obscuring their accountability for these outcomes.
Recent conflicts, such as the Syrian Civil War and the Yemen crisis, have exacerbated famines, displaced millions of refugees, and resulted in the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, further compounding humanitarian crises. These wartime strategies, including targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate violence, have led to a significant rise in civilian casualties and suffering (Swain, 2024). The concept of the 'right to be killed' suggests that there must be a balance between one’s actions and the consequences they face. However, this framework creates ethical ambiguity, as it implies that even unjust combatants retain certain rights, complicating the morality of civilian protection. Nevertheless, this does not imply that the threshold of moral responsibility required to forfeit one’s right to life should be diminished, as doing so would risk undermining the foundational principles of international humanitarian law. However, implementing stricter protections for civilians during wartime could challenge the operational strategies and logistical frameworks that underlie modern military conflicts, raising concerns about the feasibility of such measures. Ultimately, the complexities of modern warfare make it evident that safeguarding civilians requires comprehensive measures, including stronger international laws and a commitment to prioritizing nonviolent conflict resolution.
The delusion of victory
At the conclusion of a war, one side often declares victory, asserting that the outcomes were in their favor. According to Tadros (2014), victors in war may gain material advantages such as territory or wealth while also imposing punitive measures on the defeated. However, some argue that certain wars, such as the Allied resistance against Nazi Germany, were necessary to preserve global justice and human rights. Michael Walzer's Just War Theory supports such interventions under the principle of "just cause," where military action is deemed necessary to prevent atrocities. Yet, Walzer (2002) highlights that even in just wars, the cost in human suffering and destruction is significant, leading to ongoing debates about whether the outcomes truly justify the means. Additionally, McMahan (2006, p.38) explains that victorious nations often dominate post-war negotiations and exercise 'victor's justice’, leveraging their position to impose penalties on their adversaries. Consequently, Zaidi (2010) suggests that while the defeated suffer significant losses in morale and resources, the victors often experience an enhanced sense of national pride and confidence. Achieving victory in war often results in material benefits and can enhance a nation's geopolitical standing among neighboring states, though such respect may be rooted in fear or strategic necessity rather than genuine admiration.
The Allied powers used their victory in World War I to shape the Treaty of Versailles, maximizing their benefits while limiting Germany's power. Doyle (2010) notes that the Treaty of Versailles aimed to weaken Germany militarily and economically to prevent future aggression. Lincoln (2024) highlights that, motivated by retribution, France and its allies confiscated German territories critical to its economy. She further explains that Germany was compelled to drastically downsize and modernize its military while paying extensive reparations. While this treaty heavily hindered Germany from advancing, it benefited the allies in not having to face the harsh aftermaths of war. Although the treaty significantly hindered Germany's recovery, it allowed the Allied nations to avoid the harshest consequences of post-war instability.
However, victors, while enjoying certain gains, also incur substantial losses in terms of resources, infrastructure, and human lives during and after the war. Keynan (2018) emphasizes that both victors and losers face significant human costs, including loss of manpower and the societal challenge of reintegrating individuals suffering from PTSD. Schwabe (2014) notes that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles fostered German resentment toward the Allies, ultimately fueling future conflict. Subsequently, the Allied gains from World War I inadvertently enabled Germany to recover and expand its national power, laying the groundwork for future aggression. This demonstrates that while victors may experience a temporary period of peace and economic growth, the long-term consequences of war—such as economic instability, social unrest, and residual hostilities—ultimately affect all parties involved.
Given that war results in widespread destruction without yielding true victors, it cannot be deemed justifiable under ethical or practical considerations. McMahan (2006) argues that armed conflicts undermine societal development and compromise long-term security. Instead of allocating vital resources to warfare, nations should prioritize investments in societal sustainability, including education, healthcare, and infrastructure, to foster long- term growth and stability. Swain (2024) argues that investing in peace enables societies to achieve greater prosperity and security than could ever be attained through warfare. Swain (2024) further emphasizes that peace fosters the conditions necessary for societies to progress and flourish within frameworks of justice, governance, and stability. While war fails to provide a justifiable solution to global challenges, peace consistently emerges as the most effective and sustainable alternative for nations.
International trauma induced as repercussions of conflict
The outcomes of war, especially physical gains and losses, often become subject to revaluation and alteration in subsequent conflicts, as seen in the transitions from World War I to World War II. C O'Driscoll (2019) highlights that the punitive measures imposed on Germany following World War I contributed significantly to the conditions leading to World War II. Many of the territorial and material shifts established after World War I were reversed or further altered during World War II. In the postwar period, the predominant focus often lies on the tangible outcomes of war, overshadowing other critical dimensions. However, this emphasis on physical outcomes often obscures the enduring social and psychological challenges faced in the aftermath of war.
Unlike physical changes, the social and psychological scars of war often persist, impacting individuals, societies, and even global relations. Keynan (2018) describes 'national trauma,' a collective form of trauma embedded in social and public contexts (Friedman- Peleg, 2011), as a phenomenon that undermines societal stability and identity while fostering fear and disorder. Assmann (2014) further warns that national trauma increasingly transcends the boundaries of the nation-state. This rise in international trauma may lead to PTSD among those directly affected by war, as well as severe depression among individuals with no direct connection to the conflict.
While the physical gains and losses of World War I and World War II have largely faded into irrelevance, the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust continue to suffer from PTSD- related symptoms. The Holocaust has become widely recognized globally, largely thanks to the ITC (Israel Trauma Coalition) and its efforts to establish it as a transnational community memory. Keynan (2018) emphasizes that traumatized societies, such as the Jewish community, often pass down their collective trauma to subsequent generations. However, Friedman-Peleg (2011) warns that transmitting a nation's past humiliation and injuries can lead future generations to adopt a more militant and nationalistic stance toward former aggressors. This underscores the challenge of addressing national and international trauma: ensuring that it is remembered without causing further harm to those connected to it.
In wars, the emphasis often falls on a country's physical gains and losses. However, these ephemeral changes should not eclipse the enduring social and psychological consequences of war. Angstrom (2006) contends that material gains and losses in war often serve to justify the conflict, while the true battle takes place within the minds of those involved. Additionally, while the Holocaust remains widely remembered, other wartime tragedies, such as the Gulag or Pearl Harbor, risk fading from public consciousness (Assmann, 2014). As the initiators and terminators of wars, humanity must make concerted efforts to ensure these tragedies are neither forgotten nor confined to those who have suffered.
Conclusion
War exposes its participants to indiscriminate suffering, with death and despair becoming its ultimate outcomes. Historical examples like the Holocaust and modern conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war demonstrate the devastating consequences of war.
Pursuing temporary gains through warfare perpetuates long-term harm, as seen in the psychological scars left on survivors and their descendants. Therefore, no war can ever be deemed justifiable, as it indiscriminately harms all involved and stands as a barrier to sustainable peace. Instead, this essay urges the global community to prioritize empathy, dialogue, and nonviolent conflict resolution to build a world where the destructive cycles of war are replaced by enduring peace and cooperation.
References
Angstrom, J., & Duyvesteyn, I. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding victory and defeat in contemporary war. Routledge.
Assmann, A. (2014). Transnational memories. European review, 22(4), 546-556.
Doyle, R. C. (2010). The Enemy in Our Hands: America's Treatment of Enemy Prisoners of War from the Revolution to the War on Terror. University Press of Kentucky.
Friedman-Peleg, K., & Bilu, Y. (2011). From PTSD to “national trauma”: The case of the Israel Trauma Center for victims of terror and war. Transcultural psychiatry, 48(4), 416-436.
Keynan, I. (2018). The Memory of the Holocaust and Israel's Attitude Toward War Trauma, 1948–1973: the collective vs. the individual. Israel Studies, 23(2), 95-117.
Lazar, S. (2017). Just war theory: Revisionists versus traditionalists. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 37-54.
Lincoln, V. (2024). Restitution and the Treaty of Versailles: Restitution from Germany to France, 1918–1928. Contemporary European History, 1–15.
McMahan, J. (2004). The ethics of killing in war. Ethics, 114(4), 693-733.
O'Driscoll, C. (2019). Victory: the triumph and tragedy of just war. Oxford University Press. Schwabe, K. (2014). World War I and the Rise of Hitler. Diplomatic History, 38(4), 864–879. Swain, A. (2024). More Conflicts, More Deaths—Everyone Talks about Winning the War, but
No One Talks About Achieving Peace. Social Development Issues, 46(2), 32-45.
Tadros, V. (2014). Punitive war. In H. Frowe & G. Lang (Eds.), How we fight: Ethics in war (Mind Association Occasional Series). Oxford University Press.
Walzer, M. (2002). The triumph of just war theory (and the dangers of success). Social Research: An International Quarterly, 69(4), 925-944.
Zaidi, M. I. (2009). The conduct of war and the notion of victory: A theory and definition of victory [Doctoral dissertation, Cranfield University].
<정의연영어에세이대회>란?
21세기 현대사회에서 '전쟁'은 더 이상 먼 나라의 이야기가 아닙니다. 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁, 중동 분쟁, 한반도의 긴장까지. 전쟁은 인권 문제와 직결되며, 지금 우리의 해석과 응답이 필요합니다.
정의기억연대는 청소년들이 전쟁와 인권 문제를 성찰하고, 글로벌 시민으로서 평화 감수성을 기를 수 있도록 <정의연영어에세이대회>를 개최하였습니다.
제1회 <정의연영어에세이대회> 소개
제1회 대회는 "Is there a justifiable war?"(정당한 전쟁은 있는가)를 주제로, 한국 국적을 가진 미국 학제 기준 9~12학년(중학교 3학년~고등학교 3학년) 청소년들의 에세이를 모집하였습니다.
금상 1명, 은상 2명, 동상 3명, 파이널리스트 2명, 총 8분이 수상하였습니다.
이번 활동보고에서는 금상 수상자 이모음(글로벌선진 음성 11학년)님의 에세이를 소개하고자 합니다!
Is there a justifiable war?
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has resulted in widespread civilian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure, forcing millions to flee to neighboring countries. Despite these consequences, both nations continue their conflict, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. Furthermore, while wars are often justified on grounds of protecting sovereignty or ensuring justice, it is critical to examine whether these justifications hold under the long-term human, social, and economic costs of conflict. Highlighting historical and modern examples, this essay seeks to challenge the notion that war can ever be truly justifiable.
Michael Walzer (1977)’s Just and Unjust Wars provides a modern framework for evaluating the justifiability of war. He argues that wars can be justifiable if they adhere to two principles: jus ad bellum (the right to go to war, based on just cause and legitimate authority) and jus in bello (the right conduct during war, focusing on proportionality and discrimination). However, critics like McMahan (2006) note that “it is perfectly possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance with the rules” (p. 23), highlighting the limitations of this framework. Additionally, Swain (2024) further argues that no war is justifiable, emphasizing that war inevitably leads to the disproportionate loss of civilian lives and long-term societal and psychological harm. These critics highlight that, regardless of intentions, war’s destructive nature renders its justification untenable in practice.
This essay supports the claim that war is not justifiable by addressing three critical factors: (1) the sacrifices of innocent civilian lives, (2) the pyrrhic nature of many victories, and (3) the enduring social and psychological damage caused by war. By drawing on historical examples, including the Holocaust, and both World Wars, this essay argues that war’s justifiability is fundamentally flawed.
The indiscriminate nature of war
Engaging in war inevitably places the lives of innocent civilians at risk, raising profound ethical concerns about the morality of sacrificing noncombatants who have no voluntary involvement in the conflict. One critical issue surrounding civilian casualties is the deliberate use of civilians as military assets, often without their consent, as a strategy in modern warfare. During the 2006 Lebanon War, Hamas reportedly employed civilians as 'human shields' to deter attacks from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In response, the IDF argued that responsibility for civilian casualties lay with Hamas for employing such tactics, though this justification remains contentious (Lazar, 2017). However, as Lazar (2017) notes, the IDF was aware that their actions would inevitably endanger civilian lives, raising questions about their accountability in such operations. Additionally, McMahan (2006) argues that if one side in a conflict uses unjust tactics, such as deliberately attacking civilians, civilians defending themselves may inadvertently provide the opposing side with a rationale to target them, further complicating the moral framework of warfare. Ambiguities in wartime regulations often allow unjust combatants to exploit loopholes, enabling them to rationalize actions resulting in civilian casualties. Despite acknowledging that war is not the only means of conflict resolution, many nations have prioritized military spending over diplomacy, a trend exemplified by the global response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Swain, 2024). By framing their actions as 'justifiable' and prioritizing military expenditures, nations perpetuate cycles of civilian casualties in warfare, obscuring their accountability for these outcomes.
Recent conflicts, such as the Syrian Civil War and the Yemen crisis, have exacerbated famines, displaced millions of refugees, and resulted in the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, further compounding humanitarian crises. These wartime strategies, including targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate violence, have led to a significant rise in civilian casualties and suffering (Swain, 2024). The concept of the 'right to be killed' suggests that there must be a balance between one’s actions and the consequences they face. However, this framework creates ethical ambiguity, as it implies that even unjust combatants retain certain rights, complicating the morality of civilian protection. Nevertheless, this does not imply that the threshold of moral responsibility required to forfeit one’s right to life should be diminished, as doing so would risk undermining the foundational principles of international humanitarian law. However, implementing stricter protections for civilians during wartime could challenge the operational strategies and logistical frameworks that underlie modern military conflicts, raising concerns about the feasibility of such measures. Ultimately, the complexities of modern warfare make it evident that safeguarding civilians requires comprehensive measures, including stronger international laws and a commitment to prioritizing nonviolent conflict resolution.
The delusion of victory
At the conclusion of a war, one side often declares victory, asserting that the outcomes were in their favor. According to Tadros (2014), victors in war may gain material advantages such as territory or wealth while also imposing punitive measures on the defeated. However, some argue that certain wars, such as the Allied resistance against Nazi Germany, were necessary to preserve global justice and human rights. Michael Walzer's Just War Theory supports such interventions under the principle of "just cause," where military action is deemed necessary to prevent atrocities. Yet, Walzer (2002) highlights that even in just wars, the cost in human suffering and destruction is significant, leading to ongoing debates about whether the outcomes truly justify the means. Additionally, McMahan (2006, p.38) explains that victorious nations often dominate post-war negotiations and exercise 'victor's justice’, leveraging their position to impose penalties on their adversaries. Consequently, Zaidi (2010) suggests that while the defeated suffer significant losses in morale and resources, the victors often experience an enhanced sense of national pride and confidence. Achieving victory in war often results in material benefits and can enhance a nation's geopolitical standing among neighboring states, though such respect may be rooted in fear or strategic necessity rather than genuine admiration.
The Allied powers used their victory in World War I to shape the Treaty of Versailles, maximizing their benefits while limiting Germany's power. Doyle (2010) notes that the Treaty of Versailles aimed to weaken Germany militarily and economically to prevent future aggression. Lincoln (2024) highlights that, motivated by retribution, France and its allies confiscated German territories critical to its economy. She further explains that Germany was compelled to drastically downsize and modernize its military while paying extensive reparations. While this treaty heavily hindered Germany from advancing, it benefited the allies in not having to face the harsh aftermaths of war. Although the treaty significantly hindered Germany's recovery, it allowed the Allied nations to avoid the harshest consequences of post-war instability.
However, victors, while enjoying certain gains, also incur substantial losses in terms of resources, infrastructure, and human lives during and after the war. Keynan (2018) emphasizes that both victors and losers face significant human costs, including loss of manpower and the societal challenge of reintegrating individuals suffering from PTSD. Schwabe (2014) notes that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles fostered German resentment toward the Allies, ultimately fueling future conflict. Subsequently, the Allied gains from World War I inadvertently enabled Germany to recover and expand its national power, laying the groundwork for future aggression. This demonstrates that while victors may experience a temporary period of peace and economic growth, the long-term consequences of war—such as economic instability, social unrest, and residual hostilities—ultimately affect all parties involved.
Given that war results in widespread destruction without yielding true victors, it cannot be deemed justifiable under ethical or practical considerations. McMahan (2006) argues that armed conflicts undermine societal development and compromise long-term security. Instead of allocating vital resources to warfare, nations should prioritize investments in societal sustainability, including education, healthcare, and infrastructure, to foster long- term growth and stability. Swain (2024) argues that investing in peace enables societies to achieve greater prosperity and security than could ever be attained through warfare. Swain (2024) further emphasizes that peace fosters the conditions necessary for societies to progress and flourish within frameworks of justice, governance, and stability. While war fails to provide a justifiable solution to global challenges, peace consistently emerges as the most effective and sustainable alternative for nations.
International trauma induced as repercussions of conflict
The outcomes of war, especially physical gains and losses, often become subject to revaluation and alteration in subsequent conflicts, as seen in the transitions from World War I to World War II. C O'Driscoll (2019) highlights that the punitive measures imposed on Germany following World War I contributed significantly to the conditions leading to World War II. Many of the territorial and material shifts established after World War I were reversed or further altered during World War II. In the postwar period, the predominant focus often lies on the tangible outcomes of war, overshadowing other critical dimensions. However, this emphasis on physical outcomes often obscures the enduring social and psychological challenges faced in the aftermath of war.
Unlike physical changes, the social and psychological scars of war often persist, impacting individuals, societies, and even global relations. Keynan (2018) describes 'national trauma,' a collective form of trauma embedded in social and public contexts (Friedman- Peleg, 2011), as a phenomenon that undermines societal stability and identity while fostering fear and disorder. Assmann (2014) further warns that national trauma increasingly transcends the boundaries of the nation-state. This rise in international trauma may lead to PTSD among those directly affected by war, as well as severe depression among individuals with no direct connection to the conflict.
While the physical gains and losses of World War I and World War II have largely faded into irrelevance, the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust continue to suffer from PTSD- related symptoms. The Holocaust has become widely recognized globally, largely thanks to the ITC (Israel Trauma Coalition) and its efforts to establish it as a transnational community memory. Keynan (2018) emphasizes that traumatized societies, such as the Jewish community, often pass down their collective trauma to subsequent generations. However, Friedman-Peleg (2011) warns that transmitting a nation's past humiliation and injuries can lead future generations to adopt a more militant and nationalistic stance toward former aggressors. This underscores the challenge of addressing national and international trauma: ensuring that it is remembered without causing further harm to those connected to it.
In wars, the emphasis often falls on a country's physical gains and losses. However, these ephemeral changes should not eclipse the enduring social and psychological consequences of war. Angstrom (2006) contends that material gains and losses in war often serve to justify the conflict, while the true battle takes place within the minds of those involved. Additionally, while the Holocaust remains widely remembered, other wartime tragedies, such as the Gulag or Pearl Harbor, risk fading from public consciousness (Assmann, 2014). As the initiators and terminators of wars, humanity must make concerted efforts to ensure these tragedies are neither forgotten nor confined to those who have suffered.
Conclusion
War exposes its participants to indiscriminate suffering, with death and despair becoming its ultimate outcomes. Historical examples like the Holocaust and modern conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war demonstrate the devastating consequences of war.
Pursuing temporary gains through warfare perpetuates long-term harm, as seen in the psychological scars left on survivors and their descendants. Therefore, no war can ever be deemed justifiable, as it indiscriminately harms all involved and stands as a barrier to sustainable peace. Instead, this essay urges the global community to prioritize empathy, dialogue, and nonviolent conflict resolution to build a world where the destructive cycles of war are replaced by enduring peace and cooperation.
References
Angstrom, J., & Duyvesteyn, I. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding victory and defeat in contemporary war. Routledge.
Assmann, A. (2014). Transnational memories. European review, 22(4), 546-556.
Doyle, R. C. (2010). The Enemy in Our Hands: America's Treatment of Enemy Prisoners of War from the Revolution to the War on Terror. University Press of Kentucky.
Friedman-Peleg, K., & Bilu, Y. (2011). From PTSD to “national trauma”: The case of the Israel Trauma Center for victims of terror and war. Transcultural psychiatry, 48(4), 416-436.
Keynan, I. (2018). The Memory of the Holocaust and Israel's Attitude Toward War Trauma, 1948–1973: the collective vs. the individual. Israel Studies, 23(2), 95-117.
Lazar, S. (2017). Just war theory: Revisionists versus traditionalists. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 37-54.
Lincoln, V. (2024). Restitution and the Treaty of Versailles: Restitution from Germany to France, 1918–1928. Contemporary European History, 1–15.
McMahan, J. (2004). The ethics of killing in war. Ethics, 114(4), 693-733.
O'Driscoll, C. (2019). Victory: the triumph and tragedy of just war. Oxford University Press. Schwabe, K. (2014). World War I and the Rise of Hitler. Diplomatic History, 38(4), 864–879. Swain, A. (2024). More Conflicts, More Deaths—Everyone Talks about Winning the War, but
No One Talks About Achieving Peace. Social Development Issues, 46(2), 32-45.
Tadros, V. (2014). Punitive war. In H. Frowe & G. Lang (Eds.), How we fight: Ethics in war (Mind Association Occasional Series). Oxford University Press.
Walzer, M. (2002). The triumph of just war theory (and the dangers of success). Social Research: An International Quarterly, 69(4), 925-944.
Zaidi, M. I. (2009). The conduct of war and the notion of victory: A theory and definition of victory [Doctoral dissertation, Cranfield University].