The Kantian project of achieving perpetual peace among states seems (at best) an unfulfilled hope. The wider category of global justice may not fare much better. Modern states' authority claims and their exercise of power and sovereignty span a spectrum from the most stringently and explicitly codified--the constitutional level--to the most fluid and turbulent--acts of war. However, the nexus between internal and external security--be it pursued through war or law enforcement--is still undertheorised. Inter alia, that suggests a specific connection between constitutionalism and just war theory, as both concern the justifiability of state action vis-à-vis individuals as well as states. This conference aims to explore that connection through the lens of the relationship between law and just war theory. Arthur Ripstein's new book manuscript on those themes will provide a focal point for the discussion, and we are honoured to be able to share it among our participants.

Some of the questions to be considered by the speakers are the following: what, if any, are the normatively salient differences between states' internal coercion and external use of force? Is it possible to isolate the constitutional level from other aspects of the political? How could that be done while at the same time guaranteeing a robust conception of human rights and adherence to the rule of law? Likewise, is war an extension of political practice or an alternative to it? New forms and technologies of warfare raise further fundamental questions about due process, individual responsibility, fairness and broader questions pertaining to justice and the responsibility to protect. From a constitutional perspective, questions may concern the justification for state action, the human rights framework, and the question of judicial review and proportionality reasoning in “emergency” contexts.