ABSTRACT
In classic accounts of just war theory, and in keeping with the laws of armed conflict, killing soldiers in war is not murder. Soldiers are assumed to have lost their immunity from attack by virtue of armed threat they pose to their adversaries. More recently, McMahan has suggested that, as a matter of deep morality, a combatant on the aggressive side may not attack a combatant on the defensive, just as a bank robber may not attack a policeman or an armed guard. Officers of the court are justified in deferring to judicial decisions because courts are institutions dedicated to the goal of establishing the truth and producing just outcomes, whereas governments are not. Numerous soldiers contribute only marginally to the execution of war; for the most part they do so less freely and willingly than older civilians. Determining justness of cause is the very issue of contention between warring parties, with no accepted or effective arbitrator for their dispute.
