Key Arguments

• Rawls claims there will be 'no surprises' in the principles that would be acknowledged: 'the principles chosen would, I think, be familiar ones.'
• He identifies the core norm: 'The basic principle of the law of nations is a principle of equality. Independent peoples organized as states have certain fundamental equal rights. This principle is analogous to the equal rights of citizens in a constitutional regime.'
• He derives self‑determination from equality: 'One consequence of this equality of nations is the principle of self-determination, the right of a people to settle its own affairs without the intervention of foreign powers.'
• He similarly derives self‑defense and alliances: 'Another consequence is the right of self-defense against attack, including the right to form defensive alliances to protect this right.'
• He formulates a principle of treaty‑keeping constrained by justice: 'A further principle is that treaties are to be kept, provided they are consistent with the other principles governing the relations of states. Thus treaties for self-defense, suitably interpreted, would be binding, but agreements to cooperate in an unjustified attack are void ab initio.'
• These principles collectively define just cause for war: 'These principles define when a nation has a just cause in war or, in the traditional phrase, its jus ad bellum.'
• He introduces jus in bello: 'But there are also principles regulating the means that a nation may use to wage war, its jus in bello.'
• He insists on absolute limits on means: 'Even in a just war certain forms of violence are strictly inadmissible; and where a country’s right to war is questionable and uncertain, the constraints on the means it can use are all the more severe.'
• He strengthens the constraints in dubious wars: 'Acts permissible in a war of legitimate self-defense, when these are necessary, may be flatly excluded in a more doubtful situation.'
• He gives the teleological constraint on war: 'The aim of war is a just peace, and therefore the means employed must not destroy the possibility of peace or encourage a contempt for human life that puts the safety of ourselves and of mankind in jeopardy. The conduct of war is to be constrained and adjusted to this end.'

Source Quotes

I can give only an indication of the principles that would be acknowledged. But, in any case, there would be no surprises, since the principles chosen would, I think, be familiar ones. 215 The basic principle of the law of nations is a principle of equality.

But, in any case, there would be no surprises, since the principles chosen would, I think, be familiar ones. 215 The basic principle of the law of nations is a principle of equality. Independent peoples organized as states have certain fundamental equal rights. This principle is analogous to the equal rights of citizens in a constitutional regime. One consequence of this equality of nations is the principle of self-determination, the right of a people to settle its own affairs without the intervention of foreign powers.

This principle is analogous to the equal rights of citizens in a constitutional regime. One consequence of this equality of nations is the principle of self-determination, the right of a people to settle its own affairs without the intervention of foreign powers. Another consequence is the right of self-defense against attack, including the right to form defensive alliances to protect this right.

Another consequence is the right of self-defense against attack, including the right to form defensive alliances to protect this right. A further principle is that treaties are to be kept, provided they are consistent with the other principles governing the relations of states. Thus treaties for self-defense, suitably interpreted, would be binding, but agreements to cooperate in an unjustified attack are void ab initio.

A further principle is that treaties are to be kept, provided they are consistent with the other principles governing the relations of states. Thus treaties for self-defense, suitably interpreted, would be binding, but agreements to cooperate in an unjustified attack are void ab initio. These principles define when a nation has a just cause in war or, in the traditional phrase, its jus ad bellum.

But there are also principles regulating the means that a nation may use to wage war, its jus in bello. 216 Even in a just war certain forms of violence are strictly inadmissible; and where a country’s right to war is questionable and uncertain, the constraints on the means it can use are all the more severe. Acts permissible in a war of legitimate self-defense, when these are necessary, may be flatly excluded in a more doubtful situation.

Acts permissible in a war of legitimate self-defense, when these are necessary, may be flatly excluded in a more doubtful situation. The aim of war is a just peace, and therefore the means employed must not destroy the possibility of peace or encourage a contempt for human life that puts the safety of ourselves and of mankind in jeopardy. The conduct of war is to be constrained and adjusted to this end.

Key Concepts

• there would be no surprises, since the principles chosen would, I think, be familiar ones.
• The basic principle of the law of nations is a principle of equality. Independent peoples organized as states have certain fundamental equal rights. This principle is analogous to the equal rights of citizens in a constitutional regime.
• the principle of self-determination, the right of a people to settle its own affairs without the intervention of foreign powers.
• treaties are to be kept, provided they are consistent with the other principles governing the relations of states.
• agreements to cooperate in an unjustified attack are void ab initio.
• Even in a just war certain forms of violence are strictly inadmissible; and where a country’s right to war is questionable and uncertain, the constraints on the means it can use are all the more severe.
• The aim of war is a just peace, and therefore the means employed must not destroy the possibility of peace or encourage a contempt for human life that puts the safety of ourselves and of mankind in jeopardy.

Context

Middle of §58, where Rawls spells out the substantive content of the principles that would be chosen in the international original position, aligning them with traditional categories of just war theory (jus ad bellum and jus in bello) and anchoring them in the equality of states and the aim of a just peace.