|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Law, Technology and Humans |
To Face the World Alone or Together: Jus ad Bellum and the Lives of Child Soldiers in Neon Genesis Evangelion
Emily Wati Muir
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Abstract
Keywords: Law; war; childhood; justice; jus ad bellum; child soldiers; conflict.
1. Introduction
Children live within adult spaces and narratives. The narratives of armed conflict in popular culture often depict images of child heroes, which creates a false sense of romanticism that the child worldview, and its influence on coming of age, will save the world.[1] While images and narratives of child wartime heroes are perennial and celebrated,[2] children continue to be put at risk and are most vulnerable during times of conflict.[3]
This paper argues that by portraying children as stakeholders in armed conflict, through the imagery of the hero who rises above, the ambiguities of jus ad bellum create a cycle of violence that affects children.[4] By drawing on emerging literature about the legalities of Japanese popular culture, and applying a reading of just war theory, Neon Genesis Evangelion (Evangelion) rationalises a romantic perspective of child soldiers by depicting a circular model of violence that puts children at risk.
This paper engages in a cultural legal analysis of the Japanese anime Evangelion. Japanese popular culture offers a large scope of media and analytical input into the analysis of law.[5] This approach explores ‘the representations of law and justice within Japanese popular culture’ through a focus on ‘the reading, meaning and consequences of those representations as transient and permanent, local and global’.[6] This method of research is known as cultural legal studies. Cultural legal studies examine how law and popular cultures affect each other. As a legal research method, cultural legal studies is focused on reviving law’s popular culture to question law and justice.[7] It treats a cultural text as both projecting and embodying law. It demonstrates how cultural texts construe law and transforms the way that the legal system behaves.[8] Analysing cultural artefacts for its value as law aims to demonstrate how ‘concepts of law’ are ‘reflected in, but also refracted by literary texts’.[9] This is achieved by finding a subtext between the cultural text and legal theory. The two texts are then connected through the inherent ‘patterns’ between the texts.[10] The next step is to connect these ‘patterns’ in the cultural artefact’s expressions with legal theory.[11] The final stage is to expand on how the ‘subtext, reinterpret[ed], indeed signify jurisprudence’, thereby creating a ‘new intertext’ that reimagines a new nomos (law/custom) and, thus, a new perspective of legal theory.[12] Ultimately, this process leads to ‘unexpected insights regarding the underlying value system presented’.[13]
This reading is in three substantive parts. The first part will introduce the moral framework of just war theory, its connections to Evangelion’s narrative and the anime’s received status in critical anime studies. The second part of this paper argues that the jus ad bellum principles create a circle of violence that places a child hero in a position as the saviour of humanity. The final part of the paper concludes that the jus ad bellum is ambiguous and that too many exceptions exist that rationalise a romantic perspective of child soldiers. It concludes that the circular violence of just war theory puts children at risk during times of conflict.[14] Section 2 explores the background of just war theory and introduces the jus ad bellum principles explored in this paper.
2. Behind the Rise
2.1 The Ethics of War: Exploring the Moral Framework of War
Just war theory provides a moral framework for war.[15] Michael Walzer described it as the ‘morality and justice’ of war.[16] However, it is not as simple as the rights and wrongs of war. There are many theories detailing how morality and justice apply to the circumstances of war.
It is important to discuss just war theory because it seeks to clarify when important human rights can be taken away. There are many perspectives on this question, from the realist position, ‘all’s fair in love and war’,[17] to the pacifist, it is never right to kill.[18] In essence, just war theory ‘expresses our best moral thinking about war’.[19] However, to some, a just war is considered a myth because ‘injustice may be necessary’.[20] In other words, to have war, all parties must engage in aggression that puts civilians at risk. This risk may not only be immediately physical, but it can also include a range of other risks, such as the loss of housing, food and climate devastation, which affect the future of all nations involved. One example of the other impact of war is rape.[21] Although such actions are prohibited by the jus in bello principles, war is closely tied to sexual violence, for example, the history of ‘comfort women’.[22] However, using just war theory as a critical analysis tool to analyse war remains important.[23]
Just war theory is the discussion of the right to kill and how that right is best justified.[24] This discussion is posed in many ways and has been critiqued from different perspectives. Lazar critiqued the consensus that killing soldiers can be justified by not killing civilians.[25] He defended the ‘moral distinction’ that ‘in war, with rare exceptions, killing enemy non-combatants is pro tanto more seriously fact relative wrongful than killing enemy combatants’, but there are some rare exceptions.[26] However, when Lazar analysed the revisionist critiques[27] of Walzer’s analysis,[28] he pointed out that ‘just war theory seeks a middle path: to justify war but also to limit it’ and indicated that ‘matters are much messier than either side proposed’.[29] This indicates that there is still work to be done on clarifying the multiple perspectives and justifications for killing in war.
Just war theory has been analysed from many perspectives, including within the context of modern warfare and the use of technology. Roff and Enemark indicated that there are complications within the ethics of war that are raised by using technology in armed conflict through their discussion of lethal autonomous robots and uncrewed drones.[30] However, new elements are not the only way to distinguish just war theory. The theory is also analysed from the perspective of war crimes, power and politics.[31] Just war theory attempts to unify the understanding of the justice of war. Cultural legal studies can broaden this understanding of just war theory by developing knowledge of legal concepts and principles.
Doctrines of just war developed by philosophy and jurisprudence have made their way into international law. More specifically, the principles of just war today are contained in the United Nations Charter, and a just war is understood as one that is fought in self-defence or as authorised by Article 51 of the charter.[32] Although just war has been defined by our international law, there are similarities between just war theory and its codified counterpart.[33] By analysing just war theory, the boundaries of moral thinking on just war are critiqued by Evangelion.
By drawing parallels between actions of violence and justified responses to war, Evangelion critiques the ambiguity and difficulties of establishing justice principles during times of conflict.[34] Just war theory has two limbs: jus ad bellum and jus in bello.[35] These principles were first explored by Saint Augustine and later adopted by Thomas Aquinas.[36] Recent thinkers have also explored just war theory.[37] This paper will focus on the first limb, jus ad bellum. Jus ad bellum has six principles that must be followed to constitute justly engaging in a war. A country must do the following to satisfy the jus ad bellum principles: (1) be declared by a proper authority; (2) have a just cause; (3) demonstrate that the war is a last resort; (4) have a reasonable chance of success; (5) possess the right intention; and (6) demonstrate that the end must be proportional to the means used. This paper will explore the jus ad bellum criteria principles within the context of Evangelion.
Jus ad bellum has six principles.[38] First, there must be an authority to act—that is, the country must be a state with authority to engage in war.[39] Second, a country must have a just cause because it is ‘impermissible to fight in a war that lacks a just cause and that soldiers who fight in such a war cannot evade responsibility for participation by claiming that the government alone is responsible’.[40] Consequentially, the principle of self-defence has been critically analysed in the literature, exploring how self-defence creates a need for war.[41] However, there are exceptions and problems raised by self-defence and the right to war.[42] The principles also include further limits on the right to engage in war. Third, the war must be necessary, and fourth, the war must have reasonable prospects of success.[43] Fifth, even if an authority can establish this principle, the authority must also have intention.[44] Finally, the use of violence must be proportionate.[45] These principles establish the jus ad bellum or the right to justly engage in armed conflict. However, the exceptions reveal an interesting problem because, in most instances, war creates chaos, and human instinct is not to logically propose all the pros and cons of killing the person believed to be a threat.[46]
While the just war theory is applicable to the narrative of Evangelion, it is challenged by the presence and involvement of children within the armed conflict.[47] Through the armed galactic conflict, Evangelion produces ambiguities in the just war theory, foregrounding a different perspective on the ways that armed conflict affects children.[48] Section 2.2 will introduce Evangelion and its status as high art.
2.2 The (日[49])History of Neon Genesis Evangelion
Evangelion is a Japanese anime produced by Gainax and Tatsunoko Production, written by Hideaki Anno and primarily directed by Kazuya Tsurumaki.[50] It comprises 26 episodes, initially broadcast in Japan from October 1995 to March 1996.[51] The series was featured on the Australian SBS channel in 1999.[52] Evangelion is a story about 14-year-old Shinji Ikari. Shinji’s father, Gendo Ikari, enlisted him in his war organisation, NERV. Shinji piloted a robot called an Evangelion (EVA) to fight Angels, the central military threat to Earth’s civilisation. Shinji fought the Angels with two other pilots, a cloned child, Rei Ayanami, referred to as First Children, and a German Japanese pilot, Asuka Langley Soryu, referred to as Second Children.[53] Shinji joined NERV, became Third Children and moved in with NERV’s Commander Misato Katsuragi. During the series, he was introduced to NERV’s Head of Science, Ritsuko Akagi, and Second in Command, Kouzou Fuyutsuki, who helped him operate EVA-01. EVA-01 was initially built by Gehirn’s[54] brilliant engineer and Shinji’s mother, Yui Ikari. Shinji also attended school and found new friendships with Toji Shizuhara, Kensuke Aida and Hikari Horaki. As his fight with the Angels took a toll on his mental health, he met Kaji Royji, who became his mentor. Similarly, he met Kaworu Nagisa, a friend and romantic interest who was later revealed to be an Angel.
Evangelion was staged in a post-apocalyptic Tokyo, ‘Tokyo-3’, in the year 2015 after several catastrophic events. The First Impact was a natural phenomenon that ravaged humanity. During the Second Impact, Angels invaded Earth and provoked a climate crisis across the world.[55] Evangelion’s diegesis also operated in a pre-apocalyptic world because Shinji fought to prevent the foreshadowed Third Impact.[56] However, Shinji discovered that the Third Impact was not an external threat from the Angels but rather an internal one in the form of the Human Instrumentality Project, designed to obliterate humanity and shape one consciousness.[57]
The series was not an overnight success. However, since its release in 1995, it has become a critically and fan-celebrated series.[58] It is often considered a defining exemplar of anime as culturally significant high art.[59] Initially presented as a children’s anime,[60] Evangelion took a pivotal turn after Episode 16 aired because of explicit themes like sex, drugs and violence.[61] It was able to make this pivot through its harmonious utilisation of multiple genre tropes.[62] More specifically, Evangelion uses mecha (メカ: mechanical) and sekai-kei (セカイ系: world type) genre mechanisms to produce its unique narrative approach by ‘add[ing] information concerning the past’.[63] Flexible and diverse narratives have been recognised as a particular feature of anime as a medium.[64]
Diversity was achieved by embracing distinctive stylistic criteria for each episode and slowly building the narrative by adding components from different genre structures.[65] For example, in Episode 23, Rei’s fight has multiple layers built into its imagery.[66] Her robotic and military appearance and its connection to religion come from the mecha genre; however, the romance and her sacrifice come from the sekai-kei genre.[67] These all overlap within the same episode, a technique that distinguishes Evangelion.
Further, anime can introduce the audience to new narrative spaces.[68] The director, Anno, described anime as the ability to ‘expand beyond its own medium’, which allows anime to connect and reach the audience in different ways.[69] This means that anime is not just children’s media but can extend beyond that boundary and appeal to adult audiences.[70]
The complexity of narrational sources and themes in Evangelion has led to a diversity of critical readings.[71] One of the most common perspectives on Evangelion is that it is a story about human nature versus technology. Susan Napier described Evangelion as the ‘exploration of the human subject’.[72] For Andreu and Torrents, the humanness of Evangelion, within its technological front of house, represented ‘difference, not identity’.[73] Andreu and Torrents deviate from the discussion on whether humanness is linked to machines and argue that it is formed by the spectator or audience.[74]
Evangelion’s religious imagery has been read as contributing to a discussion on the metaphysical structures of different religions. Mariana Ortega outlined the significance of Adam and Eve narratives within the show.[75] However, the discussion of religion was broadened by juxtaposing Buddhist, Jewish and Christian perspectives on life and death through religious stories, imagery and motifs.[76]
There are many social and political themes in the series. Alienation was extensively explored from different perspectives by Li, Nakamura and Roth.[77] They analysed Shinji through ‘Semen’s five meanings of alienation (powerless, meaningless, normlessness, isolation, self-estrangement)’.[78] Discussions of identity have also been analysed through Oedipal motifs.[79] Further, the anime created discussions of ‘agencies and a dystopian society’ through the use of post- and pre-apocalyptic narratives, which opened ‘an abstract machine’ called a ‘waiting room’.[80]
These contributions demonstrate that Evangelion can be viewed from multiple positions; in particular, its critics have focused on the development of human consciousness and its connections to technology or religion.[81] However, the series can also be understood as a reflection of the social and institutional world. For example, there is an animated United Nations (UN) operating within the narrative, with the letters ‘UN’ branded across planes and military equipment.[82] These references to war, the rebirth of humanity and child heroism reveal a critical analysis of law, war and childhood within the narrative of Evangelion. Section 3 will critically analyse just cause, power and authority and argues that the jus ad bellum fails to provide just outcomes for children because, as the ambiguities produced by the narrative context of Evangelion indicate, there is a circular model of violence that affects children.[83]
3. The Conflict Begins: The Exploration of Jus ad Bellum
3.1 Principle 1: Is There an Authorised Legitimate Authority?
Section 3.1 examines the authorised legitimate authority principle.[84] This principle identifies that an authority like a sovereign or parliament decides to enter a war[85] and gives combatant rights to soldiers in an armed force.[86] An authority must have provided the fighting body with combatant power to have authorisation.[87] Authorisation is important for two reasons. First, when a sovereign decides to be involved in a war, its community bears the risk, and an unauthorised involvement can become morally problematic.[88] Second, the legitimate authority allows soldiers to kill on its behalf; thus, the protection of human lives becomes an important consideration for the legitimate authority.[89] In Evangelion, NERV was not an incorporated state authority because it was not a body established constitutionally. However, NERV received its authority from states that transferred combatant power to NERV as the fighting body. Accordingly, it had authorisation because nations had given it combatant power. Arguably, NERV was an authorised legitimate authority; however, its power was limited. This suggests that there is authority through combatant rights but not state authority. It also draws attention to the involvement of shadow authorities and outlines that, in some circumstances, private wars cannot be excluded.
There is plentiful military imagery in Evangelion outlining a hierarchy of authorisation within the narrative. One of the ways it achieves military imagery is through the harmonious utilisation of multiple genre tropes.[90] More specifically, Evangelion utilised mecha and sekai-kei genre mechanisms to produce the combination of inter-universal conflict and heroes saving the world. In particular, the narrative strongly suggests that nations cooperate with each other in armed conflict. For example, in Episode 7, Gendo discussed an agreement with the UN to assist NERV in building EVA, suggesting that the UN was a fundamental party to the arrangements with NERV and that all nations were complicit in the war with the Angels. This international cooperation suggests that NERV was taking instructions and had established authorisation through the UN in the narrative.
The series presented the UN as a part of the decision-making process by providing NERV with legitimacy and resources to build EVA units. NERV also had the global legal authority on how and when to engage the Angels in combat. The mecha troupes of military imagery create a system of authority and hierarchy that reflect the principles of just war theory. This connection between imagery and just war theory was further explored in Episode 7, which demonstrates that authorisation or authority can be manipulated by the structures of power present within international relationships.
NERV was part defence force and part research facility. Its military and economic influence came from nation-states because they required a part of NERV’s technoscience expertise in producing the EVA units and cloned soldiers, like Rei. However, In Episode 7, the Japanese self-defence force director criticised NERV’s authority because of its faulty technoscience.[91] In this episode, Misato and Ritsuko went to a UN meeting. Ritsuko argued with the other scientists over the advantages of new robotic units created by the Japanese self-defence force that did not use Angel DNA.[92]
The Japanese military presented two problems with NERV’s EVA compared to the new units and argued for the Japanese military to take over the military operations against the Angels. The problems they identified were that the EVAs were piloted by children with no military experience, required a power source and had only a few minutes of power once disconnected.[93] They argued that this made EVAs unsafe for the public and ill-suited for combat. The Japanese self-defence force proposed to the UN that they should use a new robot that had none of these risks.[94] During the demonstration to the UN, the new robot malfunctioned, and Misato, jumping into the cockpit to take control, found that the controls had been sabotaged, impliedly by NERV.[95] These events demonstrate that NERV’s power came from nation-states in exchange for access to new technology. However, it also indicates that NERV would do anything to maintain that power and strengthen its military and technological dominance. The narrative suggests that authorisation can be established via agreements between nations; however, those with combatant rights also have the power to misuse that authority. This indicates that just war theory fails to establish the appropriate checks and balances on authority or that those who are given authority can be easily manipulated or swayed to accept violence based on the narratives they are presented.
Evangelion uses elements of the sekai-kei anime genre’s ‘save the world’ troupe to establish authority and demonstrate that authority is not easily established but is a political struggle for power that often isolates the key fighting subjects and has its own limitations.[96] Sekai-kei anime are identified by three features. First, they involve a small love story narrative.[97] Second, a girl usually ‘fights while the boy avoids battle’.[98] Third, ‘descriptions of wider society are avoided’.[99] These themes were apparent in Episode 8, when Misato, the unit military commander and Shinji’s official guardian,[100] struggled for power with a German navy captain. Evangelion indicates that NERV has limited jurisdiction; it could assert that jurisdiction whenever there was an Angel attack.[101] In Episode 8, Misato did not have clear military authority. However, when the new pilot, Asuka, convinced Shinji to face the Angels despite having no commands to do so, they both jumped into EVA-02 to attack the Angels. Meanwhile, Misato established command over the fleet and pilots to defeat the sixth Angel.[102] In this scene, Shinji and Asuka begin their relationship. However, the girl was the leader in the fight and both children were isolated from other aspects of the politics occurring between the two authority figures. The navy captain refused to sign the authorisation for the EVA to Misato and insisted he had jurisdiction. After a struggle for power, Misato asserted her authority and stated that, in an emergency, her authority took precedence because she was the only available person with the power to command the EVA. This scene demonstrates that power can be limited, but there was a political power struggle that endangered the lives of the children on board the ship.
The use of genre narrative components highlights that there are ethical complications with NERV’s authorisation. Japan’s self-defence force director and the German navy captain of the UN fleet both questioned the ethics of involving minors in armed conflict, raising moral considerations about the value of human life.[103] The captain stated, ‘I haven’t had the pleasure of looking after someone else’s children in ages’, and exclaimed, ‘Shit! A bunch of kids are supposed to save the world?’.[104] The captain connected children with being looked after, not with the burdens of saving the world. Similarly, the director noted the child soldiers as a deficiency of NERV’s technoscience.[105] These characters suggested that there was adult incredulity towards the EVA project because it contradicted the foundations of authorisation, which placed importance on the values of human life, particularly vulnerable human life such as that of a child.[106]
Evangelion portrays that establishing who is the right authority is not a forthright application of principles. Steinhoff stated that the legitimate authority principles ‘cannot be relied on to delegitimise individual war’.[107] This suggestion was mirrored in the narrative of Evangelion because the authority transferred as the power transitioned and transformed during the conflict and was presented as more ‘colourful’ than it was first presented by the text.[108] Episode 7 revealed NERV’s shadow authority, SEELE, as the secret council behind the activities at NERV.[109] This council was a separate organisation with a different intent than the nation-states of the UN. However, SEELE was in control of NERV, and they had the same objectives. They wanted the power to shape the war and create the Human Instrumentality Project, as foreshadowed in the Dead Sea Scrolls[110]. Evangelion draws attention to the ethical problems of authorisation and control through the involvement of shadow power.[111] However, the involvement of children in Evangelion’s war indicates that there were other conflicts at play in the narrative.
Evangelion demonstrates that as power transitions during a war, so too can authority. In Episode 17, Gendo stole Adam,[112] the first Angel, by embedding Adam’s embryonic state into his palm, and the relationship between Gendo and SEELE fell apart.[113] Gendo became manic and lost his authority. NERV began to operate without him. The world was in chaos, but Kaji, the government’s spy, was watering his watermelons while talking with Shinji. While Toyko-3 was being destroyed by Angels in the background,[114] Kaji told Shinji that he was the world’s only hope for survival and without NERV’s authorisation, Shinji launched EVA-01. Shinji became an individual with authorisation by appropriating NERV’s military equipment, and after this moment, Shinji was fighting a different war.[115] Evangelion references the revisionist theory of authorisation that argues that the individual has a moral responsibility in war.[116] The violence of the war created a need for hope and protection, a responsibility that was passed on to an individual.[117] Shinji received this power not through a designated process but as the only person left in NERV’s hierarchy that had the ability to respond to the violence on Earth. This suggests that power is fundamental in authorisation and that as power changes during a conflict, so too does authority.
Evangelion criticised the process of the authorised legitimate authority principle and suggests that there are faults in NERV’s logic and in the involvement of children in conflict. Evangelion demonstrates that the just war principle fails to provide a tangible way to determine who has authority when communication and power dynamics change during armed conflicts. However, as Steinhoff suggested, if there is no legitimate authority, it does not necessarily mean there is no legitimate war because private wars are a possibility.[118] This ambiguity is also apparent when we deconstruct the just cause principle.
3.2 Principle 2: Is There a Just Cause?
The just war theory holds that there must be a just cause to justify a war.[119] O’Driscoll identified ‘four possible just causes for war: punishment, re-claiming something taken, defence against aggression and the protection of the innocent’.[120] Section 3.2, argues that the just cause principle is ambiguous because both parties can have a just cause. When two parties have a just cause the principle collapses, which leads to further violence.
Evangelion critically analyses self-defence.[121] Bugnion highlighted that there are major questions if nation-states claim a right to war based on self-defence against aggression from other states. Bugnion outlined that the aggressor and victim need to be identified in the conflict.[122] However, in most instances, both states make a claim to self-defence.[123] This raises a problematic comparison between the just causes of the conflicting authorities. The logic behind violence becomes circular, and as Benbaji identified, from the pacifist perspective, ‘a just defensive war cannot be justly fought’.[124] Bugnion outlined two consequences: the war becomes an unlawful act, and the war results in a ‘differentiated application of the laws and customs of war’.[125] Evangelion revealed to demonstrate the difficulty of identifying who is the victim, who is the aggressor and why the parties are engaged in conflict. Identifying this ambiguity within the just war theory highlights the circular violence that instead takes its place because each party makes a claim to self-defence.
Evangelion initially portrayed Earth as the victim of violence, suggesting that Earth has a just cause. In the early episodes of Evangelion, the theme of self-preservation seemed to strongly suggest that the nation-states of Earth (acting through the UN and, by agreement, NERV) had just cause. In Episode 1, NERV appeared as the champion of Earth, Gendo recruited Shinji, and the third Angel attacked Earth.[126] Kouzou, the Second in Command, former professor and Yui’s mentor, announced that it had been 15 years since the Second Impact and the last Angel attack, suggesting that they had been preparing for the Angels for a long time.[127] These references to self-defence and the interval between attacks depicted Earth in a state of uncertainty and fear, suggesting that the people of Earth were the victims while the Angels were the assailants.
As the series unfolded, it was revealed that the Angels were not trying to invade Earth but rather recover the bodies of Adam and Lilith, who were being used by SEELE and NERV to facilitate the Human Instrumentality Project.[128] In Episode 13, Ritsuko, NERV’s Head of Science, attempted to prevent an attack on the Magi System of supercomputers by the eleventh Angel. Ritsuko’s mother built the supercomputer to maintain the consciousness of the EVA units and assist the pilot’s synchronisation with EVA.[129] Lilith and Adam were hostages inside Terminal Dogma, which is why the Angels attacked Tokyo-3.[130] These references in the narrative demonstrate that the Angels were instead attempting to protect humanity by stopping the Human Instrumentality Project. This provides a different perspective on the armed conflict because the Angels were trying to protect humans and human civilisation from its own destruction by recovering the DNA that was being used by SEELE to force all human consciousness into one being.[131]
NERV and SEELE had the same justification for war: the Human Instrumentality Project, where all humans live within one consciousness so they can never be lonely. NERV created the Human Instrumentality Project by engaging in hostility with the Angels. It was proffered that when the seventeenth Angel attacked Earth, it would create human instrumentality.[132] Provoking conflict with the Angels led to a climate crisis, and, therefore, the Third Impact would consume humanity.[133] NERV would sacrifice lives to achieve this goal. SEELE chose to use the power of the Angels to cause humans to coalesce into one being. In Episode 24, SEELE mobilised Kaworu, the seventeenth Angel, who instead entered Terminal Dogma to recover Lilith.[134] Shinji was guided by Rei into Terminal Dogma to Kaworu. When they met, they talked about existence and realised that through their relational bond, they had faith; thus, Kaworu encouraged Shinji to kill him to avert the Human Instrumentality Project. Ultimately, it was revealed that SEELE initiated the conflict to generate the Human Instrumentality Project. From this context, the privileged and powerful people of Earth in SEELE were the assailants.
There may be multiple parties engaged in a war for the purpose of self-defence, and those reasons may be the same or different. However, the violence of war gave Shinji a reason to engage in warfare.[135] In Episode 17, Shinji generated authorisation through his conversation with Kaji in the watermelon scene. He produced justification because his newfound courage to protect humanity could arguably be considered ‘the protection of the innocent’.[136] Shinji symbolised hope, which aims to protect not the security interests of the states, but the lives of humans affected by the war, highlighting humanitarian intervention as justification for retaliation.
However, episodes 1, 13, 17 and 24 suggest a problem with the just cause principles because the just cause can collapse in on each other. Instead of restricting violence, they can provide a reason to cause violence. In Evangelion, the origins of the war, the victims and the aggressor could not be undoubtedly determined, even if, on the surface, it appeared just. Seemingly, there are many actions that can be unlawful, unethical or invite violence and still meet the requirements for a just cause.[137] There are too many ambiguities that leave just cause undetermined. In a perfect world, just cause should be identifiable; however, in the context of war, anyone can claim they have a just cause. This creates difficulty in determining who has a just cause in the first instance. This circle causes further violence rather than establishing a method that clarifies multiple just causes. This circular violence is also apparent in the necessity and reasonableness principles of jus ad bellum.
3.3 Principles 3 and 4: Is Destroying Humanity Necessary, and Does It Have Reasonable Prospects of Success?
According to the principles of just war theory, a war is just if there is no other way to achieve a just cause and if it is possible to win the war.[138] Section 3.3, argues that the individuals involved in a conflict, both soldiers and citizens, are the driving force behind the necessity and success principles. Evangelion makes this criticism using the Human Instrumentality Project. The Human Instrumentality Project aimed to create happiness by making humanity one consciousness; however, it fails to meet the requirements of necessity and reasonable prospects of success because there were other ways to achieve the project’s aims. In Episode 7, Japan’s self-defence force produced new robots that were controlled remotely by trained adult soldiers.[139] This showed that using children was not necessary and that there were many ways Earth could protect itself against the Angels.
The Human Instrumentality Project would allow humans to merge, complimenting the strengths or weaknesses in others and filling any gaps inside people’s hearts. Apparently, this was to happen during the Third Impact.[140] From SEELE’s perspective, the Human Instrumentality Project was necessary because ‘any action can be justified once it can be said to be militarily necessary’.[141] SEELE, although the instigators of the fight with the Angels, had to protect Earth from the Angels or all of humanity would be wiped out. They believed the best possible way to save humanity, past and present, was through the prophecy of the Dead Sea Scrolls called the Human Instrumentality Project. However, Shinji’s inner journey at the end of Episode 26 revealed that there were alternative paths to happiness, and the Human Instrumentality Project was just one option. Shinji’s exploration of his inner self demonstrates that the Human Instrumentality Project was unnecessary and did not have reasonable prospects of success.
In Episode 26, Shinji was struggling with multiple self-identities. The Human Instrumentality Project was revealed as not prioritising identity, choice and freedom for an individual’s happiness. This was reinforced by the narrative structure called ‘ochi’ (punch line). Ochi is traditionally used in rakugo.[142] It is the narrative twist at the end of a comedy that disrupts the narrative world or flow of the narrative.[143]
Ochi allows the narrative to delve deeper into Shinji’s considerations of existence in a space that holds his dreams and desires. The episode began with Shinji being woken up by his alarm clock and heading to school, where he met his friends. They saw Misato arriving in her fancy car. Shinji woke up in a new reality, where Misato was Shinji’s teacher. The other pilots were his classmates, and they attended school as usual. All ideas about EVA, being child soldiers and defeating Angels were illusive.
The characters in the narrative were in a different world that synchronously existed as Shinji’s dream and reality. Misato described this in the dialogue montage with characters’ voices and consciousness overlaid inside Shinji’s head. She told him it was an alternate reality, something inside him, his true dream. The image was what Shinji wanted—he did not want to be the hero, he did not want to be a pilot, and he did not want to save the world. He just wanted relationships with others; he wanted to be recognised by them; he wanted to be accepted by them. This provided the perspective of a teenager’s dreams within the context of a very adult narrative of violence. However, it described a very human motivation for protecting people. Shinji wanted to protect people because he wanted the chance to bond with them and, through that, create his own happiness. Episode 26 recast the struggles from the previous episodes and forced Shinji to recognise his own individuality. The episode concludes that self-identity is not having parts of other people, love or their acceptance; it involves genuinely recognising that the inner self influences relationships, bonding and love.
Shinji’s individualism saved humanity because he discovered that this was what he wanted, and he rejected the intrusion of the others within him as the Human Instrumentality Project commenced. Through individuality, it was suggested that humans create bonds of happiness, friendship and love. Shinji concluded that the only way to shift a cycle of violence was by understanding each other, by being different and by creating a bond through that difference. By approaching violence from the teenage experience of identity and difference, happiness was viewed through the individuals’ motivations and experiences. This demonstrates that the Human Instrumentality Project has no prospects of success because it did not account for the natural human instinct to create individuality as opposed to a function of sameness that does not consider concepts of happiness, love and bonding that come from trying to understand another human’s difference or identity. This critic from Evangelion indicates that an individual’s feelings and experiences are often forgotten during times of conflict, creating another cycle of violence that is imposed on children. Retaliation and violence that affect children are also present in the intention principle.
3.4 Principle 5: What is the Intention of the Parties in the Conflict?
Intention requires that a party seeks to achieve a just cause rather than using war as an excuse to achieve some other end.[144] There are many interpretations of intention, and its meaning depends on the plans of the parties involved and their motives.[145] The right intention must be ‘morally pure’—it ‘is satisfied when the main intention dominates the subordinate intention’; however, ‘there’s no need to worry about right intentions if the cause is justified’.[146] Evangelion argues that any circumstance could justify a party’s motives, creating a cycle of violence that placed responsibility on Shinji to be the hero in the war.[147] In Evangelion, there were multiple parties’ interests operating at the same time. These parties included the Angels, SEELE, Gendo, Yui, Shinji, the UN forces and the humans of Earth.
Evangelion shows that there can be as many right intentions unified by a just cause as there are individuals.[148] This is visually shown through the colour representations of the main parties negotiating the conflict. Each character and cause were portrayed with a distinct colour in the narrative. This is illustrated in Episode 12 when Gendo was discussing Shinji’s appointment as a pilot with the other NERV commanders. In this scene, each commander is displayed with a different filter of light reflecting over them.[149] Gendo was in white and brown, one was in red, one was in green, one was in yellow, and one was in blue. The colours represent their intentions. They each have a different cause but agreed with Gendo. Here, Gendo was the most interesting because he was represented by two colours. This indicates that he had his own intentions displayed in white but also secondary, conflicting aims. However, it is difficult to know what his dominant intentions are, leading to the conclusion that Gendo has just cause because he held the mixed colour brown, which is an amalgamation of all the other colours.[150] Thus, while Gendo had his own intentions in white, he also had the multi-party or dominant interest symbolised through his brown representation. These multicoloured representations in Evangelion demonstrate that war becomes a multi-party interest, with each party attempting to further their own cause and intention; all parties have a common interest in the preservation of humanity but have different perceptions of how that is achieved.
Shinji’s intentions are also represented by colour in the narrative. This is made clear through the colour purple. EVA-01 was purple, and Shinji’s eyes were a deep purple. The other EVAs and their respective pilots had blue and red features. The colour scheme of EVA suggests a deeper meaning to the narrative, given that Shinji’s purple was the combined sum of the other two EVA colour schemes. Shiinji’s colour scheme and design foreshadowed his need to understand others and his location as the fulcrum for the Human Instrumentality Project. This is demonstrated throughout the narrative. Although it seemed that he hated Asuka, he spent a great deal of time getting to know her; similarly, he spent a great deal of time understanding Rei and his other friends.[151] His colour symbolism portrays his empathy for and capability to understand humanity.[152]
Shinji’s character design became a contributing factor in the final episodes as Shinji became confused by the Human Instrumentality Project’s different colours reflected off him.[153] They were primarily blue and red, but as the scene began to align with Shinji’s individualism, the colours changed to purple again. Shinji’s aim to understand the people around him suggests that he is ‘morally pure’.[154] The final scenes went deeper into Shinji’s consciousness, and thus, they also explored his intentions. Shinji’s intentions were to protect people, not by providing them with what he believed they needed but by giving them a chance to express what they needed. Humanity and happiness were the main contentions in the armed conflict, but from Shinji’s perspective, happiness is an individual’s journey explored by creating relationships with others.[155] Shinji’s colours reflected his individualism and pure intentions, as well as his cause. Shinji’s experience was only that of one party; during times of conflict, Shinji determined that there were many individuals affected by conflict.[156] Rather than perceive each as a group, Shinji highlighted the participation of the individual in violence. Evangelion critiqued the ability of one group to have a single intention, and the symbolism demonstrates that even within the same group, there are multiple intentions. The problem arises when each party can establish a right intention under jus ad bellum. As demonstrated, Shinji had a just cause and pure intentions; however, SEELE, through Gendo, had a dominant intention that also aimed to create peace. Thus, there is a cycle of violence created through the analysis of the right intention in the jus ad bellum principles.
3.5 Principle 6: Is There Proportionality?
Once authorisation and just cause can be established, it does not mean that an authority is unbounded within just war theory. Proportionality determines the moral rights and wrongs of armed conflict.[157] Proportionality means that the morally weighted rights achieved by the war must outweigh the morally weighted wrongs caused by the war.[158] Proportionality was explored in Evangelion by juxtaposing the strengths and weaknesses of the Human Instrumentality Project.[159]
The Human Instrumentality Project allowed the sum of human consciousness across time to coexist. From NERV’s perspective, giving all human consciousness peace was the moral right of the war. However, there were some wrongs in the Human Instrumentality Project. These wrongs included the creation of the Second Impact, which wiped out half of humanity, and the clear suffering imposed on the children pilots’ lives, as they were reduced to a vessel for collective eternal life and happiness.
NERV also selected children who all attended the same school to be the chosen Children. They were the offspring of NERV’s officers and staff. These children were intended as EVA pilots and incubators of humanity’s collective consciousness. They were to have physical forms inside the EVA’s liquid, while the consciousness of all humanity was housed inside them. This means that a select number of children would have to suffer for all humanity to have the supposed eternal life promised by the project.
There were countless deaths and suffering screened and referred to because of the Human Instrumentality Project. This was not only human deaths, trauma and suffering but also that of the Angels. These wrongs do not outweigh the rights that could come from the project; it was not only at the expense of half of humanity but also at the expense of children. Despite the ability to be rebirthed by the Human Instrumentality Project, this was not the same as rebirth as an individual with autonomy but rather the forming of a merged hive collective. In Evangelion, this type of rebirth had no individuality and prevented humans from discovering true happiness. In this way, the sacrifices of the physical body did not outweigh the greater good.
NERV and the Angels have authority and a just cause; however, the conflict between these parties also gave Shinji power to protect humanity as the individual who could engage in conflict, in some ways undertaking his own individual war. This raises a morally problematic application of the just war principles because the involvement of children in armed conflict immediately fails to meet the expected conduct of individuals in war. However, as Walzer indicated, ‘it is perfectly possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance with the rules’.[160] The armed conflict in Evangelion animates Walzer’s statement. There were instances where the war in Evangelion was unjust, such as between SEELE and the Angels. However, in other ways, the war complied with the rules, such as between Earth and the Angels. As such, the application of the just war principles within the context of Evangelion is too ambiguous and creates opportunities for violence.
4. Conclusion: The Complications of War
This paper has provided a cultural legal analysis of Evangelion and its imagery of child soldiers within adult spaces and contexts. Armed conflict in popular culture depicts a romantic and false worldview of child heroism.[161] This paper has demonstrated that the principles of just war theory are ambiguous, with too many exceptions justifying retaliation and violence that affects children.
This paper has argued that the images of child soldiers in the anime Evangelion critically analysed the ambiguities of jus ad bellum.[162] Evangelion rationalised a romantic perspective of child soldiers and a circular model of violence that placed children at risk. In this paper, it has been argued that Evangelion was not just a children’s cartoon but a significant artistic and cultural contribution to the world’s popular culture that has created fans worldwide and has been critically analysed in academic literature. The anime covered a wide range of topics relevant to the way the world interacts with the law, war and childhood. It has been further argued that NERV did not have a just war and that the jus ad bellum principles were complicated by the involvement of children in armed conflict. More specifically, multiple parties could establish authorisations, just cause and intention but failed to have reasonable prospect of success, necessity and proportionality. When read within the context of Evangelion, the exceptions to the principles or right to engage in armed conflicts create an opportunity to do violence or, more seriously, place the burden of war on children to save humanity. This demonstrates that jus ad bellum is ambiguous and that too many exceptions exist that rationalise a romantic perspective of child soldiers and put children at risk during times of conflict.[163]
Bibliography
Andreu, Ballús and Alba G Torrents. “Evangelion as Second Impact: Forever Changing That Which Never Was.” Mechademia: Second Arc 9 (2014): 283-293. https://doi.org/10.5749/mech.9.2014.0283
Anime News Network. “Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV).” Accessed February 25, 2022. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=49
Asian Women’s Fund. “Japanese Military and Comfort Women.” Digital Museum: The Comfort Women Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund. Accessed October 9, 2022. https://www.awf.or.jp/e1/facts-12.html
Asimow, Michael and Shannon Mader. Law and Popular Culture: A Course Book. New York: P. Lang, 2004.
Bainbridge, Jason. “Lawyers, Justice and The State: The Sliding Signifier of Law in Popular Culture.” Griffith Law Review 15, no 1 (2006): 153-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2006.10854569
Bellamy, Alex J. Fighting Terror: Ethical Dilemmas. London: Zed Books, 2008.
Bellamy, Alex J. Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006.
Benbaji, Yitzhak. “State Defense.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, edited by Larry May, 59-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Benbaji, Yitzhak. “The Responsibility of Soldiers and The Ethics of Killing in War,” Philosophical Quarterly 57, no 229 (2007): 558-572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.497.x
Benjamin, Nickl. “Through the Eyes of Child Soldiers: On War, Violence and Trauma in Popular Entertainment Fictions.” Close Encounters in War Journal 1 (2018): 82-94.
Betancourt, Theresa. “Developmental Perspectives on Moral Agency in Former Child Soldiers.” Human Development 54, no 5 (2011): 307-312. https://doi.org/10.1159/000332230
Bosworth, David A. “David, Jether, and Child Soldiers.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36, no 2 (2011): 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089211423715
Boucher, David. “The Just War Tradition and Its Modern Legacy: Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello.” European Journal of Political Theory 11, no 2 (2012): 92-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885111425115
Braun, Christian Nikolaus. “Just War and the Question of Authority.” Zeitschrift für Ethik und Moralphilosophie 1 (2018): 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-018-0024-x
Brocklehurst, Helen. “Just War? Just Children?” In Just War Theory: A Reappraisal, edited by Mark Evans, 114-133. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1r24hg
Broderick, Mick. “Anime’s Apocalypse: Neon Genesis Evangelion as Millennarian Mecha.” Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, no 7 (2002): 1-11. http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue7/broderick_review.html
Brown, Kathryn, Michael Asimow and David Ray Papke, ed. Law and Popular Culture International Perspectives. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014
Bugnion, François. “Just Wars, Wars of Aggression and International Humanitarian Law.” International Review of the Red Cross 84, no 847 (2002): 523-546.
Burkhardt, Todd. Just War and Human Rights: Fighting with Right Intention. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2017.
Chan, David K. Beyond Just War: A Virtue Ethics Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Cannizzaro, Enzo. “Proportionality in the Law of Armed Conflict.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict, edited by Andrew Clapham, and Paola Gaeta, 332 - 352. Online edn: Oxford Academic, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199559695.002.0003
Connolly, Catherine. “ ‘Necessity Knows No Law’: The Resurrection of Kriegsraison through the US Targeted Killing Programme.” Journal of Conflict and Security Law 22, no 3 (2017): 463-496. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krx017
de Silva, Harendra, Chris Hobbs and Helga Hanks. “Conscription of Children in Armed Conflict—A Form of Child Abuse. A Study of 19 Former Child Soldiers.” Child Abuse Review 10, no 2 (2001): 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.669
de Zwart, Melissa, Bernadette Richards, and Suzanne Le Mire, ed. Law and Popular Culture in Australia. Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2015.
Dong, Lan. “Childhood in War and Violence: Turtles can Fly and The Kite Runner.” In Portrayals of Children in Popular Culture: Fleeting Images, edited by Vibiana Bowman Cvetkovic and Debbie Olson, 169 -178. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012.
Duffy, Helen. The ‘War on Terror’ and the Framework of International Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Enemark, Christian. “Unmanned Drones and the Ethics of War.” In Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century, edited by Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G Evans and Adam Henschke, 327 - 337. London: Routledge, 2013.
Fabre, Cecile. “Cosmopolitanism, Just War Theory and Legitimate Authority.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–) 84, no 5 (2008): 963-976.
Fiala, Andrew. The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007.
Friedman, Lawrence. “Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture.” Yale Law Journal 98, no 8 (1989): 1579-1569.
Gates, Scott, and Simon Reich, ed. Child Soldiers in the Age of Fractured States, The Security Continuum. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010.
Goldberg, Wendy. “This Isn’t Your Mother’s Mecha: The Adolescent and Narrative in Neon Genesis Evangelion.” Popular Culture Association National Conference, New Orleans, April 19, 2004. Eva Monkey. Accessed February 25, 2022. https://www.evamonkey.com/writings/goldberg-wendy-this-isnt-your-mothers-mecha-the-adolescent-and-narrative-in-neon-genesis-evangelion.php
Greenfield, Steven, and Guy Osborn, ed. Readings in Law and Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 2006.
Hashimoto, Akiko. “ ‘Something Dreadful Happened in the Past’: War Stories for Children in Japanese Popular Culture.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 13, issue 30, no 1 (2015): 1-14. https://apjjf.org/2015/13/30/Akiko-Hashimoto/4349.html
Higgins, Rosalyn. Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.
Howard, Christopher. “The Ethics of Sekai-kei: Reading Hiroki Azuma with Slavoj Žižek.” Science Fiction Film and Television 7, no 3 (2014): 365-386. https://doi.org/10.3828/sfftv.2014.21
Ishidō, Hiroyuki, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 3, “鳴らない, 電話” (The silent phone). TV Tokyo Aired October 18, 1995.
Ishidō, Hiroyuki, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 12, “奇跡の価値は” (The Value of Miracles). TV Tokyo Aired December 20, 1995.
Ishidō, Hiroyuki, Masahiko Ōtsuka, and Shunji Suzuki, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 21, “ネルフ、誕生” (The birth of NERV). TV Tokyo Aired February 21, 1996.
Janzen, Greg. “A Critique of the Right Intention Condition as an Element of Jus ad Bellum.” Journal of Military Ethics 15, no 1 (2016): 36-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2016.1170370
Kaga, Tsuyoshi, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 4, “雨、逃げ出した後” (Rain after running away). TV Tokyo Aired October 25, 1995.
Kumar, Kamayani, and Angelie Multani. Childhood Traumas: Narratives and Representations. London: Routledge India, 2019.
Kurukulasuriya, Lasanda. “Child Soldiers Key to Rebuilding Sri Lanka.” Herizons 16, no 4 (2003): 13-14. https://www.proquest.com/magazines/child-soldiers-key-rebuilding-sri-lanka/docview/212397563/se-2.
Landa, Amanda. “Mechanized Bodies of Adolescence: Weaponized Children, National Allegory and Japanese Anime.” Red Feather Journal 3, no 2 (2012): 16-33.
Lang, Anthony F, Jr, Cian O’Driscoll and John Williams. “Introduction: The Just War Tradition and the Practice of Political Authority.” In Just War: Authority, Tradition, and Practice, edited by Anthony F Lang, Cian O’Driscoll and John Williams, 1-16. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2013.
Lango, John W. “Preventive Wars, Just War Principles and the United Nations.” Journal of Ethics 9, no 1/2 (2005): 247-268.
Lazar, Seth. “Evaluating the Revisionist Critique of Just War Theory.” Daedalus 149, no 1 (2017): 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00426
Lazar, Seth. “Risky Killing and the Ethics of War.” Ethics 126, no 1 (2015): 91-117. https://doi.org/10.1086/682191
Lee, Steven P. “The Moral Problems of Asymmetric War.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, edited by Larry May, 114-132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Li, Carl, Mari Nakamura and Martin Roth. “Japanese Science Fiction in Converging Media: Alienation and Neon Genesis Evangelion.” Asiascape.org Occasional Paper Series, no 6 (2013): 1-16.
Luban, David. “Just War Theory and the Laws of War as Nonidentical Twins.” Ethics & International Affairs 31, no 4 (2017): 433-440. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679417000429
MacNeil, William P. Lex Populi: The Jurisprudence of Popular Culture. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2007.
MacNeil, William P. Novel Judgements: Legal Theory as Fiction. London: Routledge, 2011.
Malone, Paul M, Madeline Ashby and Thomas Lamarre. “Review: Three Faces of Eva.” Mechademia: Second Arc 5 (2010): 345-346.
Masayuki, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 19, “男の戰い” (A man’s battle). TV Tokyo Aired February 7, 1996.
Masayuki, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 24, “最後のシ者” (The last cometh). TV Tokyo Aired March 13, 1996.
Masayuki, and Kazuya Tsurumaki, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 26, “世界の中心でアイを叫んだけもの” (The beast that shouted ‘I’ at the heart of the world). TV Tokyo Aired March 27, 1996.
Masuo, Shōichi, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 23, “涙” (Tears). TV Tokyo Aired March 6, 1996.
Mateo, Alex. “Some of 16th Seiyū Award Winners Announced.” Anime News Network. Posted on February 16, 2022. Accessed February 25, 2022. https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2022-02-15/some-of-16th-seiyu-award-winners-announced/.182653
Mattox, John Mark. “The Just War Tradition in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, edited by Larry May, 13-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
May, Larry, “Jus ad Bellum.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, edited by Larry May, 219-233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
May, Larry. War Crimes and Just War. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
McMahan, Jeff. “Can Soldiers be Expected to Know Whether Their War is Just?” In Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century, edited by Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G Evans and Adam Henschke, 13-22. London: Routledge, 2013.
McMahan, Jeff. Killing in War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
McMahan, Jeff. “The Morality of War and the Law of War.” In Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers, edited by David Rodin and Henry Shue, 19-44. Oxford University Press, 2008.
McPherson, Lionel. “Individual Self-Defence in War.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, edited by Larry May, 135-151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Meisels, Tamar. Contemporary Just War: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2018.
Morioka, Heinz and Miyoko Sasaki. “Rakugo: The Popular Narrative Art of Japan.” Harvard East Asian Monographs, no 139 (1990).
Morkevičius, Valerie. Realist Ethics: Just War Traditions as Power Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Napier, Susan J. “When the Machines Stop: Fantasy, Reality, and Terminal Identity in ‘Neon Genesis Evangelion’ and ‘Serial Experiments Lain’.” Science Fiction Studies 29, no 3 (2002): 418-435.
Nussbaum, Arthur. “Just War: A Legal Concept?” Michigan Law Review 42, no 3 (1943): 453-479. https://doi.org/10.2307/1283519
O’Driscoll, Cian. “New Thinking in the Just War Tradition: Theorizing the War on Terror.” In Security and the War on Terror, edited by Alex J Bellamy, Roland Bleiker, Sara E Davies and Richard Devetak, 93-105. New York: Routledge, 2008.
Office of the High Commissioner. “Optional Protocol to the Conventions on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict.” United Nations. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPACCRC.aspx
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. “Child Recruitment and Use.” United Nations. Accessed May 14, 2022. https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/
Ōhara, Minoru, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 17, “四人目の適格者” (The fourth to be qualified). TV Tokyo Aired January 24, 1996.
Okamura, Tensai, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 13, “使徒、侵入” (Angel infiltration). TV Tokyo Aired December 27, 1995.
Olsthoorn, Johan. “Grotius and the Early Modern Tradition.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, edited by Larry May, 33-56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Orend, Brian. “Kant’s Just War Theory.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 37, no 2 (1999): 323-353.
Ortega, Mariana. “My Father, He Killed Me; My Mother, She Ate Me; Self, Desire, Engendering, and the Mother in Neon Genesis Evangelion.” Mechademia 2 (2007): 216-232. https://doi.org/10.1353/mec.0.0010
Ŏsterdahl, Inger and Esther van Zadel. “What Will ‘Jus post Bellum’ Mean? Of New Wine and Old Bottles.” Journal of Conflict & Security Law 14, no 2 (2009): 175-207. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krp018
Park, Augustine SJ. “Child Soldiers and Distributive Justice: Addressing the Limits of Law?” Crime, Law and Social Change 53, no 4 (2010): 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-010-9232-y
Parry, Jonathan. “Just War Theory, Legitimate Authority, and Irregular Belligerency.” Philosophia 43 (2015): 175-196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-014-9577-z
Pearson, Ashley and Kieran Tranter. “Code, Nintendo’s Super Mario and Digital Legality.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 28, no 4 (2015): 825-842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9417-x
Pearson, Ashley, Thomas Giddens and Kieran Tranter. “Crime Fighting Robots and Duelling Pocket Monsters.” In Law and Justice in Japanese Popular Culture: From Crime Fighting Robots to Duelling Pocket Monsters, edited by Ashley Pearson, Thomas Giddens and Kieran Tranter,1-15. London: Routledge, 2018.
Peters, Timothy D. “Reading the Law Made Strange: Cultural Legal Studies, Theology and Speculative Fiction.” In Cultural Legal Studies: Law’s Popular Cultures and the Metamorphosis of Law, edited by Cassandra Sharp and Marrett Leiboff, 252-273. New York: Routledge, 2015.
Poitras, Gilles. “Contemporary Anime in Japanese Popular Culture.” In Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime, edited by Mark W MacWilliams, 48-67. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp, 2008.
Pollard, Emily. “The Place of Jus post Bellum in Just War Considerations.” In Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century, edited by Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G Evans and Adam Henschke, 93-104. London: Routledge, 2013.
Purves, Duncan and Ryan Jenkins. “Right Intention and the Ends of War.” Journal of Military Ethics 15, no 1 (2016): 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2016.1170385
Redmond, Dennis. “Anime and East Asian Culture: Neon Genesis Evangelion.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video 24, no 2 (2007): 183-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509200500486205
Reichberg, Gregory M. “Culpability and Punishment in Classical Theories of Just War.” In Just War: Authority, Tradition, and Practice, edited by Anthony F Lang, Cian O’Driscoll and John Williams, 157-180. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2013.
Reichert, Konstantin. “Postmodern Theology of ‘Neon Genesis Evangelion’ as a Criticism.” Doxa 30, no 2 (2018): 161- 170. https://doi.org/10.18524/2410-2601.2018.2(30).146569
Rieder, Michael, and Imti Choonara. “Armed Conflict and Child Health.” Archives of Disease in Childhood 97, no 1 (2012): 59-62. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2009.178186
Rodin, David. “The Moral Inequality of Soldiers: Why Jus in Bello Asymmetry is Half Right.” In Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers, edited by David Rodin and Henry Shue, 44-68. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Roff, Heather M. “Killing in War: Responsibility, Liability, and Lethal Autonomous Robots.” In Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century, edited by Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G Evans and Adam Henschke, 352-364. London: Routledge, 2013.
Routt, William D. “Stillness and Style in Neon Genesis Evangelion.” Animation Journal 8, no 2 (2000): 28-43. https://web.archive.org/web/20050322140428/http://www.evangelion.ca:80/faqs/essay7.html
Ruh, Brian. “Producing Transnational Cult Media: Neon Genesis Evangelion and Ghost in the Shell in Circulation.” Intensities: The Journal of Cult Media 5 (2012): 1-22. https://www.academia.edu/4222963/Producing_Transnational_Cult_Media_Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_and_Ghost_in_the_Shell_in_Circulation
Schott, Robin May. “Just War and the Problem of Evil.” Hypatia 23, no 2 (2008): 122-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2008.tb01189.x
Sharp, Cassandra, and Marett Leiboff. Cultural Legal Studies: Law’s Popular Cultures and the Metamorphosis of Law. London: Routledge, 2016.
Shcherbata, Halyna R. “The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: A Humanitarian Tragedy and a Tragedy for Science.” EMBO Reports 23, no 5 (2022): e55164. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202255164
Shenoda, Sherry, Ayesha Kadir and Jeffrey Goldhagen. “Children and Armed Conflict.” Pediatrics 136, no 2 (2015): e309-e311. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0948
Shenoda, Sherry, Ayesha Kadir, Shelly Pitterman, Jeffrey Goldhagen, Parminder S Suchdev, Kevin J Chan, Cynthia R Howard, Patrick McGann, Nicole E St Clair, Katherine Yun and Linda A Arnold. “The Effects of Armed Conflict on Children.” Pediatrics 142, no 6 (2018): e20182585. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2585
Shue, Henry. “Do we Need a ‘Morality of War’?” In Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers, edited by David Rodin and Henry Shue, 87 - 111 New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Silbey, Jessica. “What We Do When We Do Law and Popular Culture.” Law & Social Inquiry 27, no 1 (2002): 139-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2002.tb01110.x
Smith, Eric E. Just War Theory and Non-State Actors: Using an Historical Body of Knowledge in Modern Circumstances. London: Routledge, 2020.
Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. “Annex 2. The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children: Filling Knowledge Gaps. Draft Research Agenda.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. December 2009. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human/child/survey/annex2.html
Steinhoff, Uwe. “Just Cause and the Continuous Application of Jus ad Bellum.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, edited by Larry May, 80-97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Steinhoff, Uwe. The Ethics of War and the Force of Law: A Modern Just War Theory. New York: Routledge, 2020.
Sugiyama, Keiichi, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 7, “人の造りしもの” (The works of man). TV Tokyo Aired November 15, 1995.
Syse, Henrik. “Augustine and Just War: Between Virtue and Duties.” In Ethics, Nationalism, and Just War: Medieval and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Henrik Syse and Gregory M Reichberg, 36-50 Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2007.
Tampubolon, Manotar. “Russian Invasion of Ukraine: The Human Rights Violations.” Fundamentum Petendi Law Journal 1, no 1 (2022): 37-46.
Tanaka, Yuki. Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the US Occupation. London: Routledge, 2001.
Telegraph Reporter. “Meet the Royal Navy Heroes of World War One Who Were Just Young Boys.” The Telegraph, March 6, 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11452014/Meet-the-Royal-Navy-heroes-of-World-War-One-who-were-just-young-boys.html
Thornton, Margaret. Romancing the Tomes: Popular Culture, Law and Feminism. London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2002.
Thouny, Christophe. “Waiting for the Messiah: The Becoming-Myth of Evangelion and Densha Otoko.” Mechademia 4 (2009): 111-129.
Toner, Christopher. “The Logical Structure of Just War Theory.” Journal of Ethics 14, no 2 (2010): 81-102. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9072-0
Tsurumaki, Kazuya dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 1, “使徒、襲来” (Angel attack). TV Tokyo Aired October 4, 1995.
Tsurumaki, Kazuya, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 8, “アスカ、来日” (Asuka arrives in Japan). TV Tokyo Aired November 22, 1995.
Tsurumaki, Kazuya, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 16, “死に至る病、そして” (The sickness unto death, and then). TV Tokyo Aired January 17, 1996.
Tsurumaki, Kazuya, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 25, “終わる世界” (The ending world). TV Tokyo Aired March 20, 1996.
Ul Hassan, Fahim, Kasi Sekar and E Aravind Raj. “Healing the Wounds of Conflict: Need for School Mental Health Programs for Children Affected by Armed Conflict in Kashmir.” Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing 8, no 12 (2017): 1510-1513.
Ultimate Pop Culture. “List of Anime Grand Prix Winners.” Accessed February 25, 2022. https://ultimatepopculture.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Anime_Grand_Prix_winners
Uniacke, Suzanne. “The Condition of Last Resort.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, edited by Larry May, 98-113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
UNICEF. “War in Ukraine: Support for Children and Families.” Accessed September 18, 2022. https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/war-ukraine-pose-immediate-threat-children
United Nations. “United Nations Charter.” Accessed February 25, 2022. https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/
Vaughan, Cassandra N. “The Buddhist Worldview of Neon Genesis Evangelion: Positioning Neon Genesis Evangelion in a Japanese Cultural Context.” Master thesis. Ohio: Ohio State University, 2009. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1259592113
Vindevogel, Sofie, Kathleen Coppens, Ilse Derluyn, Marten De Schryver, Gerrit Loots and Eric Broekaert. “Forced Conscription of Children During Armed Conflict: Experiences of Former Child Soldiers in northern Uganda.” Child Abuse & Neglect 35, no 7 (2011): 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.03.011
von Elbe, Joachim. “The Evolution of the Concept of the Just War in International Law.” American Journal of International Law 33, no 4 (1939): 665-688. https://doi.org/10.2307/2192879
Walzer, Michael. Arguing About War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
Watanabe, Tatsuya, dir. 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン (Neon genesis evangelion). Season 1, episode 11, “静止した闇の中で” (In the still darkness). TV Tokyo Aired December 13, 1995.
Werner, Richard. “Just War Theory: Going to War and Collective Self-Deception.” In Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century, edited by Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G Evans and Adam Henschke, 35-46. London: Routledge, 2013.
Whitman, Jeffery P. “Is Just War Theory Obsolete?” In Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century, edited by Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G Evans and Adam Henschke, 23-34 London: Routledge, 2013.
Williams, John. “ ‘Not in My Name’ Legitimate Authority and Liberal Just War Theory.” In Just War: Authority, Tradition, and Practice, edited by Anthony F Lang, Cian O’Driscoll and John Williams, 63-80. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2013.
Wolf, Shelby, Karen Coats, Patricia Enciso, and Christine Jenkins. Handbook of Research on Children’s and Young Adult Literature. New York: Routledge, 2011.
Wong, Amos. “Interview with Hideaki Anno, Director of ‘Neon Genesis Evangelion’.” Way Back Internet Archive. Accessed February 25, 2022. http://web.archive.org/web/20070613125248/http:/www.aoianime.hu/evangelion/index.php?page=interanno
Woznicki, Krystian. “Towards a Cartography of Japanese Anime.” February 20, 1998. Accessed February 25, 2022. https://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9802/msg00101.html
[1] Dong, “Childhood in War and Violence,” 172; Hashimoto, “Something Dreadful Happened,” 12.
[2] Bosworth, “David, Jether, and Child Soldiers,” 185-197.
[3] UNICEF, “War in Ukraine”; Telegraph Reporter, “Meet the Royal Navy Heroes”; Vindevogel, “Forced Conscription of Children,” 553; Ul Hassan, “Healing the Wounds,” 1514; Shenoda, “Effects of Armed Conflict”; Shenoda, “Children and Armed Conflict”; Rieder, “Armed Conflict and Child Health”; Park, “Child Soldiers and Distributive Justice,” 331; Landa, “Mechanized Bodies of Adolescence”; Kurukulasuriya, “Child Soldiers Key,” 13-14; Kumar, Childhood Traumas; Betancourt, “Developmental Perspectives,” 307-312; Benjamin, “Through the Eyes,” 82-94; Wolf, Handbook of Research, 25; de Silva, “Conscription of Children,” 125-134; Gates, “Child Sldiers in the Age of Fractured States”; Office of yhr Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, “Child Recruitment and Use”; Shcherbata, “The Russian Invasion of Ukraine”; Tampubolon, “Russian Invasion of Ukraine” 37.
[4] Brocklehurst, “Just War? Just Children?” 116; May, “Jus ad Bellum,” 219.
[5] Pearson, “Crime Fighting Robots,” 6-12; Pearson, “Code, Nintendo’s Super Mario,” 825.
[6] Pearson, “Crime Fighting Robots,” 6-12.
[7] Sharp, Cultural Legal Studies.
[8] Silbey, “What We Do,” 139; Friedman, “Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture,” 1579; Brown, International Perspectives; Bainbridge, “Lawyers, Justice and The State,” 153; Asimow, A Course Book; Greenfield, Readings in Law; de Zwart, Law and Popular Culture; Thornton, Romancing the Tomes.
[9] MacNeil, Lex Populi, 156.
[10] MacNeil, Novel Judgements, 14.
[11] MacNeil, Novel Judgements, 14.
[12] MacNeil, Novel Judgements, 14; Peters, “Reading the Law Made Strange,” 252-273.
[13] Peters, “Reading the Law Made Strange,” 262.
[14] McMahan, Killing in War, 108.
[15] Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 13.
[16] Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 13.
[17] Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 4.
[18] Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 21.
[19] Fiala, The Just War Myth, 3.
[20] Fiala, The Just War Myth, 3.
[21] Fiala, The Just War Myth, 9.
[22] Fiala, The Just War Myth, 9; Asian Women’s Fund, “Japanese Military and Comfort Women”; Tanaka, Japan’s Comfort Women, 19.
[23] Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 13.
[24] Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 13.
[25] Lazar, “Risky Killing,” 92.
[26] Lazar, “Risky Killing,” 93.
[27] McMahan, “Morality of War,” 23.
[28] Lazar, “Evaluating the Revisionist Critique,” 113.
[29] Lazar, “Evaluating the Revisionist Critique,” 113.
[30] Roff, “Killing in War,” 352; Enemark, “Unmanned Drones,” 323.
[31] Morkevičius, Realist Ethics, 1-40; May, War Crimes and Just War, 3.
[32] Luban, “Just War Theory,” 433; Lango, “Preventive Wars, Just War Principles,” 253; Higgins, Problems and Process, 242-243; United Nations, “United Nations Charter.”
[33] Luban, “Just War Theory,” 434.
[34] Walzer, Arguing about War, 22; Lee, “Moral Problems of Asymmetric War,” 115; Rodin, “Moral Inequality of Soldiers,” 45.
[35] Lang, “Introduction: The Just War Tradition,” 1-16.
[36] Mattox, “Just War Tradition,” 18; Reichberg, “Culpability and Punishment,” 158; Syse, “Augustine and Just War,” 36; Braun, “Just war and the Question,” 222; von Elbe, “ Evolution of the Concept,” 669.
[37] Schott, “Just War and the Problem,” 123; Bellamy, Just Wars, 158; Olsthoorn, “Grotius,” 40.
[38] Luban, “Just War Theory,” 434; Boucher, “Just War Tradition,” 95-96; Orend, “Kant’s Just War Theory,” 326; Toner, “Logical Structure of Just War,” 84; Nussbaum, “Just War: A Legal Concept?” 453; Williams, “Not in My Name?” 63-80; Ŏsterdahl, “Of New Wine,” 176.
[39] Benbaji, “State Defense,” 59; Steinhoff, Ethics of War, 31; Bellamy, Fighting Terror: Ethical Dilemmas, 6; Braun, “Just war and the Question,” 224; Parry, “Just War Theory”; Williams, “Not in my Name,” 65.
[40] McMahan, “Can Soldiers,” 13.
[41] Whitman, “Is Just War Theory Obsolete?” 28.
[42] O’Driscoll, “New Thinking,” 94; Benbaji, “Responsibility of Soldiers,” 559; Duffy, War on Terror, 151; Bugnion, “Just Wars, Wars of Aggression,” 532.
[43] Uniacke, “Condition of Last resort,” 100; Meisels, Contemporary Just War, 15.
[44] Purves, “Right Intention,” 23; Orend, “Kant’s Just War Theory”; Williams, “Not in My Name”; Janzen, “Critique of the Right Intention,” 38; Burkhardt, “Just War and Human Rights,” 12-14; Smith, Just War Theory, 41.
[45] Purves, “Right Intention,” 23; Orend, “Kant’s Just War Theory”; Williams, “Not in My Name”; Cannizzaro, “Proportionality in the Law,” 344.
[46] Werner, “Just War Theory,” 35.
[47] Office of the High Commissioner, “Optional Protocol”; Lee, “Moral Problems of Asymmetric War,” 115; Werner, “Just War Theory,” 43.
[48] Brocklehurst, “Just War? Just Children?” 116; Shenoda, “Effects of Armed Conflict”; Rieder, “Armed Conflict and Child Health,” 59; Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, “Impact of Armed Conflict.”
[49] The word for day in Japanese, pronounced hi.
[50] Malone, “Three Faces of Eva,” 347; Redmond, “Anime and East Asian Culture,” 183.
[51] Andreu, “Evangelion as Second Impact,” 283; Malone, “Three Faces of Eva,” 348.
[52] Anime News Network, “Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV).”
[53] The wording of ‘Children’ instead of the grammatically correct ‘Child’ is a reference to the intentional translation of this term from Japanese to English. According to some of the Neon Genesis Evangelion merchandising, the wording of ‘First Children for Rei’ was used deliberately because she had many interchangeable clones and the term referred to all clones pluralistically. This convention continued with the subsequently numbered Children to hide Rei’s cloned nature from the other child candidates because it was considered revealing if corrected.
[54] Gehirn is the previous name for NERV, when NERV was a research institute only. Yui was a bioengineer with the organisation and formulated a way to bio-fuse Angel DNA with human consciousness. A test in the EVA-01 unit resulted in her death and her consciousness was locked away in the EVA. There are also suggestions that Rei is a clone of Yui using Angel and Yui’s DNA. The success of this test meant that women’s consciousness could be downloaded into the EVA and a child could then pilot the EVA through their mother’s consciousness. Unfortunately, the mothers died, and the Children are left orphaned.
[55] Tsurumaki, “Angel Attack.”
[56] Tsurumaki, “Angel Attack.”
[57] Ishidō, “Birth of NERV.”
[58] Ultimate Pop Culture, “Anime Grand Prix Winners”; Mateo, “Seiyū Award Winners Announced”; Wong, “Interview with Hideaki Anno”; Woznicki, “Towards a Cartography”; Malone, “Three Faces of Eva,” 347-349; Redmond, “Anime and East Asian Culture,” 183-188; Goldberg, “This Isn’t Your Mother’s Mecha”; Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 366; Andreu, “Evangelion as Second Impact,” 283; Anime News Network, “Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV).”
[59] Ruh, “Producing Transnational Cult Media”, 1 -22; Ultimate Pop Culture, “Anime Grand Prix Winners”; Mateo, “Seiyū Award Winners Announced”; Wong, “Interview with Hideaki Anno”; Woznicki, “Towards a Cartography”; Malone, “Three Faces of Eva,” 347-349; Redmond, “Anime and East Asian Culture,” 183-188; Goldberg, “This Isn’t Your Mother’s Mecha”; Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 366; Andreu, “Evangelion as Second Impact,” 283; Anime News Network, “Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV).”
[60] Tsurumaki, “Angel Attack.”
[61] Tsurumaki, “Sickness Unto Death, and Then.”
[62] Goldberg, “This Isn’t Your Mother’s Mecha.”
[63] Poitras, “Contemporary Anime,” 57.
[64] Routt, “Stillness and Style,” 29.
[65] Goldberg, “This Isn’t Your Mother’s Mecha.”
[66] Masuo, “Tears.”
[67] Poitras, “Contemporary Anime,” 57; Routt, “Stillness and Style,” 29; Goldberg, “This Isn’t Your Mother’s Mecha.”; Masuo, “Tears.”
[68] Routt, “Stillness and Style,” 30.
[69] Woznicki, “Towards a Cartography”; Wong, “Interview with Hideaki Anno.”
[70] Woznicki, “Towards a Cartography”; Wong, “Interview with Hideaki Anno.”
[71] Broderick, “Anime’s Apocalypse,” 11.
[72] Napier, “When the Machines Stop,” 419.
[73] Andreu, “Evangelion as Second Impact,” 286.
[74] Andreu, “Evangelion as Second Impact,” 286.
[75] Ortega, “My Father, He Killed Me,” 217.
[76] Reichert, “Postmodern Theology,” 162; Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 370; Thouny, “Waiting for the Messiah,” 115; Vaughan, “Buddhist Worldview.”
[77] Li, “Japanese Science Fiction,” 3-4.
[78] Li, “Japanese Science Fiction,” 3-4.
[79] Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 370.
[80] Thouny, “Waiting for the Messiah,” 117.
[81] Andreu, “Evangelion as Second Impact,” 286; Ortega, “My Father, He Killed Me,” 217; Reichert, “Postmodern Theology,” 162; Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 370; Thouny, “Waiting for the Messiah,” 115; Vaughan, “Buddhist Worldview.”; Li, “Japanese Science Fiction,” 3-4.
[82] Sugiyama, “Works of Man.”
[83] Lee, “Moral Problems of Asymmetric War,” 115.
[84] Benbaji, “State Defense,” 59.
[85] Steinhoff, Ethics of War, 31; Bellamy, Fighting Terror: Ethical Dilemmas, 6.
[86] Braun, “Just war and the Question,” 224; Parry, “Just War Theory”; Williams, “Not in My Name,” 65.
[87] Braun, “Just war and the Question,” 224; Parry, “Just War Theory”; Williams, “Not in My Name,” 65.
[88] Williams, “Not in My Name,” 65.
[89] Chan, Beyond Just War, 9; Fabre, “Cosmopolitanism”; Lang, “Introduction: The Just War Tradition,” 7.
[90] Goldberg, “This Isn’t Your Mother’s Mecha.”
[91] Sugiyama, “Works of Man.”
[92] Sugiyama, “Works of Man.”
[93] Sugiyama, “Works of Man.”
[94] Walzer, Arguing about War, 16.
[95] Sugiyama, “Works of Man.”
[96] Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 366.
[97] Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 366.
[98] Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 366; Kaga, “Rain After Running Away.”
[99] Howard, “Ethics of Sekai-kei,” 367.
[100] Ishidō, “Silent Phone.”
[101] Chan, Beyond Just War, 9; Fabre, “Cosmopolitanism”; Lang, “Introduction: The Just War Tradition,” 7.
[102] Tsurumaki, “Asuka Arrives in Japan.”
[103] Chan, Beyond Just War, 120.
[104] Sugiyama, “Works of Man.”
[105] Tsurumaki, “Asuka Arrives in Japan.”
[106] Chan, Beyond Just War, 120.
[107] Steinhoff, Ethics of War, 33.
[108] Steinhoff, Ethics of War, 34.
[109] Sugiyama, “Works of Man.”
[110] The set of documents that contain the philosophy of SEELE.
[111] Steinhoff, Ethics of War, 34; Lee, “Moral Problems of Asymmetric War,” 115.
[112] Adam is the first Angel. He is also the progenitor of the Angels in the narrative. The research team finds Adam and the spear of Longinus in Antarctica and begin exploration on Adam’s S2 engine. His discovery and experimentation lead to the second impact and the subsequent attacks from the Angels in the narrative. An S2 or S2 Engine is power source of the EVA in Neon Genesis Evangelion.
[113] Ōhara, “Fourth to be Qualified.”
[114] McMahan, Killing in War, 39.
[115] Steinhoff, Ethics of War, 34.
[116] Braun, “Just War and the Question,” 227; McPherson, “Individual Self-Defence in War,” 145.
[117] Shue, “Morality of War,” 89.
[118] Steinhoff, Ethics of War, 33.
[119] McMahan, Killing in War, 6-7; Steinhoff, “Just Cause,” 87; Lang, “Introduction: The Just War Tradition,” 7; Syse, “Augustine and Just War,” 36; Orend, “Kant’s Just War Theory,” 326; Toner, “Logical Structure of Just War,” 81; Nussbaum, “Just War: A Legal Concept?” 453; Williams, “Not in My Name”; von Elbe, “Evolution of the Concept”; Purves, “Right Intention.”
[120] O’Driscoll, “New Thinking,” 94.
[121] Benbaji, “Responsibility of Soldiers,” 559; Duffy, War on Terror, 151.
[122] Bugnion, “Just Wars, Wars of Aggression,” 532.
[123] Bugnion, “Just Wars, Wars of Aggression,” 532.
[124] Benbaji, “Responsibility of Soldiers,” 558.
[125] Bugnion, “Just Wars, Wars of Aggression,” 532.
[126] Tsurumaki, “Angel Attack.”
[127] Tsurumaki, “Angel Attack.”
[128] Sugiyama, “Works of Man”; Watanabe, “Still Darkness.”
[129] Okamura, “Angel Inflitration.”
[130] Masayuki, “Last Commeth.”
[131] Tsurumaki, “Angel Attack.”
[132] Masuo, “Tears.”
[133] McMahan, Killing in War, 169.
[134] Masuo, “Tears.”
[135] McMahan, Killing in War.
[136] Braun, “Just War and the Question,” 227; O’Driscoll, “New Thinking,” 94.
[137] Meisels, Contemporary Just War, 15.
[138] Uniacke, “Condition of Last Resort,” 100; Meisels, Contemporary Just War, 15.
[139] Uniacke, “Condition of Last Resort,” 100; Meisels, Contemporary Just War, 16.
[140] Masuo, “Tears.”
[141] Connolly, “Necessity Knows No Law,” 466.
[142] Marioka, “Rakugo,” 69-96.
[143] Marioka, “Rakugo,” 69-96.
[144] Purves, “Right Intention,” 23; Orend, “Kant’s Just War Theory”; Williams, “Not in My Name”; Janzen, “Critique of the Right Intention,” 38; Burkhardt, “Just War and Human Rights,” 12-14; Smith, Just War Theory, 41.
[145] Purves, “Right Intention,” 21-27.
[146] Smith, Just War Theory, 38.
[147] Purves, “Right Intention,” 21-27.
[148] Pollard, “Place of Jus post Bellum,” 95.
[149] Ishido, “The Value of Miracles”.
[150] Smith, Just War Theory, 38.
[151] Sugiyama, “Works of Man.”
[152] Smith, Just War Theory, 41.
[153] Tsurumaki, “Ending World”; Masayuki, “Beast that Shouted.”
[154] Smith, Just War Theory, 38.
[155] Smith, Just War Theory, 41.
[156] Pollard, “Place of Jus post Bellum,” 95; Purves, “Right Intention,” 21-27.
[157] Cannizzaro, “Proportionality in the Law,” 344.
[158] Benbaji, “State Defense,” 63-64; Braun, “Just War and the Question,” 224; Parry, “Just War Theory”; Williams, “Not in My Name,” 65; Syse, “Augustine and Just War,” 37; Orend, “Kant’s Just War Theory,” 326; Toner, “Logical Structure of Just War,” 81; Nussbaum, “Just War: A Legal Concept?” 453; Purves, “Right Intention,”; Lang, “Introduction: The Just War Tradition,” 1-16.
[159] Tsurumaki, “Ending World.”
[160] Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 21.
[161] Dong, “Childhood in War and Violence,” 172; Hashimoto, “Something Dreadful Happened,” 12.
[162] Brocklehurst, “Just War? Just Children?” 116; May, “Jus ad Bellum,” 219.
[163] McMahan, Killing in War, 108.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LawTechHum/2023/4.html