Essay from the year 2018 in the subject Sociology - War and Peace, Military, grade: 8,0, University of Groningen, course: Theories of International Relations, language: English, abstract: Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust War" from 1977 is considered a major work in traditional Just War Theory. Many of his assumptions are still the basis for modern warfare considerations. However, the author suggest that Walzer's concept of jus in bello (the conduct of war) needs further revision, especially to provide an appropriate notion of combatants. In this respect, the theoretical conception of soldiers will be examined on three different levels of analysis. These include the combatants' contradictory responsibilities in jus ad bellum (the justification for war), jus in bello and the debate on the value of a soldier's life. Firstly, the contradictory role of combatants' responsibilities in jus ad bellum and jus in bello by referring to Graham Parsons' criticism on the dualism of Just War Theory will be outlined. Then, the author elaborates on Walzer's claim that all soldiers are morally equal. The following critical analysis of the value of combatants' lives as individual human beings will further demonstrate the need for a revised perception of combatants in modern warfare and point out why Walzer's assumptions are insufficient. While the role of civilians and their need for protection has developed over time and even restrictions for cruel methods of killing were introduced, the status of soldiers has basically remained the same. In this work the author arugues that striving toward more just warfare also requires reconsidering the highly inhumane status of soldiers in traditional approaches.