In examining the justification of civil disobedience I assumed for simplicity that the laws and policies protested concerned domestic affairs. It is a left duty to ask how the theory of autonomous political duty applies to foreign policy.
Now in order to do this it is necessary to extend the theory of justice to the law of nations. I shall try to indicate how this can be done. To fix ideas I shall consider briefly the justification of conscientous refusal to engage in certain acts of war, or to serve in the armed forces. I assume that this refusal is based upon political and upon religious or other principles; that is, the principles cited by way of justification are those of the conception of justice underlying the constitution: Our problem, then, is to relate the just political principles regulating the conduct of states to the contract doctrine and to explain the moral basis of the law of nations from this point of view.
Let us assume that we have already derived the principles of justice as these apply to societies as units and to the basic structure. Imagine also that the various principles of left duty and of obligation that apply to individuals have been adopted. Thus the persons in the original position have agreed to the principles of right as these apply to their own society and to themselves as members of it. Now at this point one may extend the interpretation of the original position and think of the autonomous parties as representatives of different nations who must choose together the fundamental principles to adjudicate conflictinf claims among states (personally:'gender'). Following out the conception of the initial situation. I assume that these representatives are deprived of various kinds of information. While they know that they represent different nations each living under the 'normal'circumstances of human life, they know nothing about the particular circumstances of their own society, its power and strength in comparison with other nations, nor do they know their place in their own society. Once again the contracting parties, in this case representatives of states, are allowed only enough knowledge to make a rational choice to protect their interest but not so much that the more fortunate among them can take advantage of their special situation. This original position is fair between nations ('gender'); it nullifies the contigencies and biases of historical fate. Justice between states is determined by the principles that would be chosen in the original position so interpreted. These principles are political principles, for they govern public policies toward other nations('gender').

I can give only an indication of the principles that would be acknowledged. But, in any case, there would be no surprises, since the principles chosen would, I think, be familiar ones. The basic principle of the law of nations is a principle of equality. Independent peoples organized as states have certain fundamental equal rights. This principle is analogous to the equal rights of citizens in a constitutional regime. One consequence of this equality of nations is the principle of self-determination, the right of a people to settle its own affairs without the intervention of foreign powers. Another consequence is the right of self-defense against attacks, including the right to form defensive alliances to protect this right. A further principle is that treaties are to be kept, provided they are consistent with the other principles governing the relations of states. Thus treaties for self-defense, suitable interpreted, would be binding, but agreements to cooperate in an unjustified attack are void ab initio.

These principles define when a nation has a just cause in war or, in the traditional phrase, its jus ad bellum. But there are also principles regulating the means that a nation may use to wage war, its jus in bello.
Even in a just war certain forms of violence are strictly inadmissible; and where a county's right to war is questionable and uncertain, the constraints on the means it can use are all the more severe. Acts permissible in a war of legitimate self-defense, when these are necessary, may be flatly excluded in a more doubtful situation. The aim of war is just a peace or encourage a contempt for human life that puts the safety of ourselves and of MANKIND in jeopardy. The conduct of war is to be constrained and adjusted to this end

Hetero-Narratives Natural Duty are Self-Deployed !!!