0:00 Opening 2:34 Introduction 4:34 Start of the lecture 6:52 Wars in the 20th century 7:38 Reasons for optimism? 9:16 Pandemic of bad thinking 14:30 Death of expertise 17:53 Gerasimov's doctrine 19:40 Wisdom? 22:18 Realism in the theory of war 24:38 Pacifism 27:29 Just war theory 28:03 Law of war 28:31 Ius ante bellum 31:33 The classical paradigm and its consequences 34:10 Ius ad bellum 43:34 Ius in bello 53:06 Example - bombing of an ammunition depot 57:43 The new paradigm and its consequences 1:04:36 Moral equality of combatants 1:10:18 Immunity of civilians 1:20:14 Problems of the new paradigm 1:30:58 Acknowledgements and organizational matters 1:32:21 Discussion 1:37:50 Conclusion The just war theory is a kind of middle ground between pacifism on the one hand (no war is morally justified) and realism (moral evaluation cannot be applied to wars) on the other. The classical theory or paradigm of just war contains two sets of conditions: ius ad bellum (just starting a war) and ius in bello (just conducting a war). Currently, the conditions ius ante bellum (justice before war) and ius post bellum (ending a war and post-war settlements) have also been added to them. According to this paradigm, moreover, there is no relationship of dependence between ius ad bellum and ius in bello. One consequence is that if combatants fight in accordance with ius in bello, we must consider them morally equivalent regardless of which side of the conflict they fight on. In other words, all combatants have an equal right to kill. In my lecture, I will present the traditional paradigm of just war and show how it is used to evaluate military conflicts. I will then focus on modern criticism of this paradigm, which seeks primarily to question the logical independence between ius ad bellum and in bello. If these conditions are not independent, a number of very important conclusions follow, e.g. questioning the moral equality of combatants. This new paradigm seems to be gaining more and more supporters. However, it seems – as I will try to show – that it faces serious objections and problems that question its validity. Perhaps we have no choice but to return to the classical paradigm. David Černý studied theoretical philosophy (Bologna, Rome), and lectured on logic and philosophy of science in Italy. He is currently engaged in bioethics (1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague), philosophy of law and analytical philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, personal ontology) and works as a researcher at the Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.