Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations

If there are war crimes, people must be held morally responsible for them. Moral authority concerns “the capacity to evoke commonly accepted principles in persuasive ways and to apply them to particular cases” (288). It differs from legal authority and is critically important in wartime given the radically incomplete nature of laws.

The crime of aggressive war begins in politics: Acts of state are also the acts of particular persons who are morally and criminally responsible for them. It is reasonable to hold the head of state and those closest to leadership accountable when war crimes occur because they either sanctioned the criminal actions or made no attempt to stop them. Some cases, such as the German invasion of Belgium, are clear-cut crimes, while others are more difficult to assess. Beyond the top leadership, Walzer asks how far down the line responsibility for an unjust war should go. He uses the World War II example of the State Secretary of the German Foreign Ministry, Ernst von Weizsaecker. The Secretary was acquitted of crimes against peace even though he played a role in planning an aggressive war because he opposed and objected to the policy. Walzer claims that the failure of the Secretary to resign makes him bear some responsibility.