Concluding Remarks

Abstract

In this chapter we offer some concluding remarks. We point to the limitations of contractarianism, to its advantages over revisionism, and to its practicality. We show that for contractarianism wars are not necessarily ‘moral tragedies’, as they are for revisionists because wars do not necessarily involve unavoidable wrongdoing. According to contractarianism, combatants participating in war can do so without violating the rights of either combatants or civilians of the enemy side. The chapter also shows how even revisionists rely at times on contractualist premises to justify adherence to rules which they regard as unjustified in terms of ‘deep morality’. We also criticize the way this notion is utilized, especially the distinction between ‘deep morality’ and non-deep morality (associated with compliance with the laws of war). The distinction creates the impression that one should give priority to considerations stemming from deep morality over those stemming from shallow morality. But clearly, even revisionists do not assume such a priority—neither in general, nor in the field of war. Finally, the chapter highlights the ‘realist’ aspect of contractarianism, namely, its scepticism about the termination of wars and warfare. This scepticism has to do with the existence of evil individuals and of rogue states, but also with benign self-interest coupled with epistemic shortcomings and a constant suspicion of others. Given this realist assumption, states would be better off agreeing on rules to regulate war that would, on the one hand, facilitate effective self-defence, while on the other, reduce the killing and harm they cause.