This thematic issue investigates the moral and political legitimations of war and the complex dynamics of peace negotiation processes in contemporary international politics. It brings together contributions from political science, sociology, international relations, and political psychology to examine how military interventions are justified, how peace is negotiated or prevented, and how legitimacy is constructed, challenged, and transformed over time. The articles address a wide range of empirical cases—from Afghanistan and Ukraine to Cyprus and Mozambique—while engaging with normative frameworks such as just war theory, root narrative theory, and theories of authoritarianism. Several contributions interrogate the discursive and institutional mechanisms through which states, elites, and publics justify war, be it through historical analogies, legal claims, national myths, or emotional appeals. Others highlight the psychological and ideological underpinnings of militarism, including collective narcissism, authoritarian submission, and gendered dispositions toward violence. One central theme running through the issue is the fragility of normative boundaries between aggression and defence, and how these are negotiated differently depending on regime type, political culture, and strategic interests. Particular attention is given to the interplay of moral reasoning, political communication, and affective dynamics in shaping public support for war. In doing so, this issue contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how legitimacy is contested in wartime and peacebuilding contexts alike. It also offers critical reflections on the ethical limits of just war theories and the psychosocial conditions under which war becomes normatively acceptable to democratic societies.
Yendell et al. (Tue,) studied this question.