Michael Walzer has forwarded an argument that defends an exemption from adherence to Jus in Bello when a state finds itself in a situation of "supreme emergency." The argument is morally problematic due to the fact that it defends the direct and intentional targeting of non-combatants, a restriction which has traditionally been considered as inviolable in the Just War tradition. This thesis seeks to demonstrate a further problem for Walzer's position, the fact that his argument is sufficiently broad that it may be co-opted by parties whom Walzer wishes to exclude, practitioners of contemporary terrorism. My method will be to demonstrate certain deficiencies in Walzer's argument, through analysis of the paradigm case he presents. I will then proceed to present two cases for the adoption of his "supreme emergency" defense by the terrorist organizations Al Qaeda and Hamas. I will show that both of these cases may ultimately fail under closer scrutiny, but will conclude that the ability for two such cases to be constructed demonstrates the ability for Walzer's defense to be adopted by an entity which does not suffer these same failings, ultimately dooming Walzer's argument.

La théorie de la guerre juste a fournit les principes qui forment la base de nos intuitions concernant l’éthique de la guerre pendant plus de milles ans. Cependant, la nature de la guerre a changé drastiquement dans les derniers 50 ans. Avec les avancés technologiques, tous les aspects de la guerre, du champ de bataille aux armes utilisées, sont aujourd’hui très différents. Ce qui est proposé dans ce texte est que les principes de jus in bello sont malgré tout encore adéquats pour les guerres contemporaines. Spécifiquement, en utilisant une analyse historique, ce texte argumentera contre la condition de l’urgence suprême de Michael Walzer pour proposer une approche qui laisse les principes de bases du jus in bello intactes. Ce texte suggère que les théoriciens de la guerre juste se penchent sur la question des armes prohibées pour avoir un impacte positif dans le domaine de l’éthique de la guerre. / Just war theory has been provided the basis for thinking about the morality of war for the past thousand years of Western history. However, the nature of warfare has dramatically altered in the last 50 years alone. With the advent of new technologies all aspects of warfare from the nature of the battlefield to the types of weapons used have changed. What this paper will argue, through a historical analysis of these technological changes, is that the principles guiding actions taken in war, the principles of jus in bello, are well equipped to deal with these changes. More specifically, this paper will argue against Michael Walzer’s famous supreme emergency condition and suggests instead that just war theorists should instead be concerned with weapons prohibitions, not in undermining the established principles of jus in bello, in order to have a favourable impact on contemporary warfare.

La théorie de la guerre juste a fournit les principes qui forment la base de nos intuitions concernant l’éthique de la guerre pendant plus de milles ans. Cependant, la nature de la guerre a changé drastiquement dans les derniers 50 ans. Avec les avancés technologiques, tous les aspects de la guerre, du champ de bataille aux armes utilisées, sont aujourd’hui très différents. Ce qui est proposé dans ce texte est que les principes de jus in bello sont malgré tout encore adéquats pour les guerres contemporaines. Spécifiquement, en utilisant une analyse historique, ce texte argumentera contre la condition de l’urgence suprême de Michael Walzer pour proposer une approche qui laisse les principes de bases du jus in bello intactes. Ce texte suggère que les théoriciens de la guerre juste se penchent sur la question des armes prohibées pour avoir un impacte positif dans le domaine de l’éthique de la guerre. / Just war theory has been provided the basis for thinking about the morality of war for the past thousand years of Western history. However, the nature of warfare has dramatically altered in the last 50 years alone. With the advent of new technologies all aspects of warfare from the nature of the battlefield to the types of weapons used have changed. What this paper will argue, through a historical analysis of these technological changes, is that the principles guiding actions taken in war, the principles of jus in bello, are well equipped to deal with these changes. More specifically, this paper will argue against Michael Walzer’s famous supreme emergency condition and suggests instead that just war theorists should instead be concerned with weapons prohibitions, not in undermining the established principles of jus in bello, in order to have a favourable impact on contemporary warfare.