In [[just war theory]], a '''supreme emergency''' is a situation where a state faces an existential threat from an aggressor, which scholars like [[Michael Walzer]] and [[John Rawls]] argue justifies otherwise unjust action.
==Background== {{listen|filename=Winston Churchill - Be Ye Men of Valour.ogg|title=Be Ye Men of Valour|description=The speech delivered by Winston Churchill in which supreme emergency is coined|pos=right|style="clear:none"}} While supreme emergency is a relatively new concept, [[just war theory]], the context in which supreme emergency is discussed, dates back to preclassical philosophers, with evidence suggesting just war traditions existed in [[ancient Egypt]]<ref name="Cox">{{cite journal |last1=Cox |first1=Rory |title=Expanding the History of the Just War: The Ethics of War in Ancient Egypt |journal=International Studies Quarterly |date=June 2017 |volume=61 |issue=2 |pages=371–384 |doi=10.1093/isq/sqx009|hdl=10023/17848 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> and in [[ancient India]].<ref name="Robinson">{{cite book |editor1-last=Robinson |editor1-first=Paul F. |title=Just War in Comparative Perspective |date=November 2016 |publisher=Ashgate |location=Farnham, UK |edition=1}}</ref> In most modern conceptions of just war theory, there are two categories that the moral justification of a war are assessed: ''[[jus ad bellum]]'' or justice before the war and ''[[jus in bello]]'' or justice during the war.<ref name = Walzer/>{{rp|21}} [[Brian Orend]] includes a third category, ''[[jus post bellum]]'' or justice after the war.<ref name = Orend/> Supreme emergencies are typically argued to exempt nations from following certain ''jus in bello'' requirements.
In his 1940 speech, [[Be Ye Men of Valour]], British prime minister [[Winston Churchill]] coined 'supreme emergency' to describe the threat posed by [[Nazi Germany]] to the [[United Kingdom]]. Churchill used the phrase as rhetorical device to urge the British people to overcome their fear and to suggest that the new threat was more severe than others in the past.<ref name="Walzer">{{cite book |last1=Walzer |first1=Michael |title=Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations |date=11 August 2015 |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York, New York |isbn=9780465052714 |edition=5}}</ref>{{rp|250}} Decades later, [[Michael Walzer]] analyzed the assumptions underlying Churchill's supreme emergency and posited an exemption from other moral obligations of just war theory, especially an obligation to mitigate harm to [[non-combatant]]s. This proposed exemption has since become a contentious issue among just war theorists.<ref name="Orend"/>
==Definition and criteria== For a threat to be considered a supreme emergency, Walzer suggests two conditions must be met: the threat must be imminent, and it must be of a more severe nature than ordinary military defeat. Conventional military threats, like [[military occupation]], [[indemnity|indemnities]] or the loss of [[territorial integrity]] are, Walzer argues, not severe enough to constitute a supreme emergency exemption, but the [[exile#Nation in exile|exile]] or [[genocide|murder of a large portion of the population]] could be.<ref name = "Walzer"/>{{rp|251–254}}
==Interpretations==
===As a justification=== Walzer's supreme emergency defines the exemption as a [[justification and excuse|justification]]; Walzer argues that actions like targeting civilians are not violations of just war theory when a supreme emergency is in effect and one is not morally liable for the otherwise morally wrong action of attacking civilians. The supreme emergency is a justification, Walzer argues, because a supreme emergency becomes apparent only after many options have been exhausted, and a "moral urgency" exists when an entire nation is immanently threatened. In such situations, Walzer argues that a statesman would have "[[dirty hands|moral dirty hands]]" because he would be obliged to urgently decide between otherwise morally wrong alternatives.<ref name="Walzer"/> John Rawls similarly argues for supreme emergency as a justification, arguing that the threat of genocide undermines well-ordered society, which is the basis of Rawls' universal human rights. As such, Rawls only sees supreme emergency as justification when used by societies which are in compliance with universal human rights; Britain's attacks on civilians early in World War II were justified, but, had the roles been reversed, Germany would not have been justified in similar attacks.<ref name="Roberts">{{cite journal |last1=Roberts |first1=Peri |title=The supreme emergency exemption: Rawls and the use of force |journal=European Journal of Political Theory |date=December 2011 |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=155–171 |doi=10.1177/1474885111425120|s2cid=145009709 }}</ref>
===As an excuse=== While Walzer and others have characterized supreme emergencies as a justification, others have argued instead that supreme emergencies are an excuse, mitigating, but not rectifying the wrongness of the action. Brian Orend, for example, has argued that supreme emergencies cannot be used to justify because it allows the state to perform actions which would never be permissible at an interpersonal level, because Walzer's arguments depend on a [[utilitarianism|utilitarian]] interpretation of war which Orend believes is incompatible with just war theory, and because allowing exemptions to ''jus in bello'' requirements for supreme emergencies makes ''jus in bello'' subordinate to ''jus ad bellum''. Orend instead argues that in supreme emergency situations, extreme duress excuses decisions for ones own survival.<ref name="Orend">{{cite book |last1=Orend |first1=Brian |title=The Morality of War |date=10 September 2013 |publisher=Broadview Press |location=Petersborough, Ontario |isbn=9781554810956 |edition=2 expanded}}</ref> Supreme emergency has also been characterized as a "moral disaster" by Primoratz, arguing that Walzer's dirty hands should be less permissive and more specific.<ref name="Primoratz">{{cite journal |last1=Primoratz |first1=Igor |title=Civilian Immunity, Supreme Emergency, and Moral Disaster |journal=The Journal of Ethics |date=23 July 2010 |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=371–386 |doi=10.1007/s10892-010-9077-8|s2cid=144579097 }}</ref>
===No supreme emergency exemption=== Michael Schwartz and Debra Comer argue that religious institutions, such as the [[Church of England]], would not accept violations of ''jus in bello'' rules for a supreme emergency. This is because there is distinction between acquired rights, which stem from circumstance, and inherent rights, which are inviolable properties of personhood. Schwartz and Comer argue that Walzer incorrectly treated all rights as acquired, allowing rights that biblical ethicists consider inherent to change with circumstance.<ref name = "Schwartz&Comer">{{cite journal |last1=Schwartz |first1=Michael |last2=Comer |first2=Debra R. |title=Morality and Mortality: Why the Church of England Would Have Rejected Walzer's Supreme Emergency Argument |journal=Journal of Beliefs & Values |date=28 February 2018 |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=490–501 |doi=10.1080/13617672.2018.1441350}}</ref>
==References== {{reflist}}
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]] [[Category:Just war theory]] [[Category:Military ethics]]