English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper considers literary texts that foreground the combatants! view. The focus lies on the soldiers! perspective in general and on just war theory!s principle of responsibility in particular. The distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello as discussed by just war theorists allows us to distinguish between different spheres of responsibility and this entails that soldiers may be not responsible for the war as such, only for their conduct. However, this view is contested, as many just war theorists today argue that we ought to make a distinction between just and unjust soldiers. This paper discusses literary texts that seem to counter this view. Two playwrights, William Shakespeare and Gregory Burke, writing war plays for the stage over four hundred years apart, go to great lengths to show their audience the common soldiers! perspective on the justice of the wars they fight in. This paper argues that both playwrights draw a line between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Both Shakespeare andBurke seem to emphasize deliberately that soldiers cannot be held accountable for the injustice of the causes they are obligated to fight for.

"That's more than we know": The Principle of Responsibility and the Common Soldier in William Shakespeare's Plays