Abstract
In Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer draws on the work of classical just war theorists such as Augustine and Vitoria to offer a principled antidote to the moral realism that often dominates popular debate about war ethics. The understanding of role morality on which Walzer bases his modern account of just war theory differs in subtle but significant ways from that of his classical predecessors, however, and because of this he is not entirely successful in challenging the realist positions of Thucydides and Hobbes. While Augustine and Vitoria argue that the innocence of soldiers for ad bellum violations is contingent on limited knowledge, Walzer conceives of this innocence as an absolute derived from their occupation of the role of soldier. For this reason, Walzer's account of just war theory functions more as a compromise between principles and realism than a true ethical alternative.
