The Ethics of War

1
The Ethics of War

• Spring 2007

2
Main normative questions

• When, if ever, is resort to war justified?
• What can we permissibly do in war?
• Who are responsible for, and in, war?
• What duties can states legitimately impose on
  their citizens?

3
Methodological questions

• The moral status of the norms of war (war
  convention)
• Two levels of principle
• Analogical reasoning
• Two levels of war (methodological and normative
  collectivism/individualism)

4
Moral status of the norms of war

• I propose to call the set of articulated norms,
  customs, professional codes, legal precepts,
  religious and philosophical principles and
  recirpocal arrangements that shape our judgments
  of military conduct the war convention.
• The terms of our judgments on war are most
  explicitly set forth in positive international
  law
• (Wars 44).

5
Conventionalism

• The laws of war are taken to reflect, embody or
  give effect to fundamental moral distinctions and
  considerations (Wasserstrom 1986 396)

6
Two levels of principle

• Principles of regulation (conventions, codes of
  conduct, law)
• Principles of evaluation (deep morality, e.g.,
  human rights)

7
Analogical reasoning

• The domestic analogy
• Self-defence
• Punishment

8
Analogical reasoning ex

• (1) In the course of a bank robbery, a thief
  shoots a guard reaching for his gun. The thief is
  guilty of murder, even if he claims that he acted
  in self-defence. Since he had no right to rob the
  bank, he also had no right to defend himself
  against the banks defenders () The idea of
  necessity does not apply to criminal activity it
  was not necessary to rob the bank in the first
  place.
• (2) In the course of an aggressive war, a soldier
  shoots another soldier, a member of the enemy
  army defending his homeland. Assuming a
  conventional fire-fight, this is not called
  murder nor is the soldier regarded after the war
  as a murderer, even by his former enemies. The
  case is in fact no different from what it would
  be if the second soldier shot the first. Neither
  man is a criminal, and so both can be said to act
  in self-defence. (MW 128)

9
Two levels of war

• Individual level
• Collective level

10
The legalist paradigm

• There exists an international society of
  independent states
• This international society has a law that
  establishes the rights of its members above all
  the rights of territorial integrity and political
  sovereignty
• Any use of force or imminent threat of force by
  one state against the political sovereignty or
  territorial integrity of another constitutes
  aggression and is a criminal act
• Aggression justifies two kinds of violent
  response a war of self-defence by the victim or
  a war of law enforcement by the victim and any
  other member of international society
• Nothing but aggression can justify war
• Once the aggressor state has been militarily
  repulsed, it can also be punished (Wars 61-63).

11
Jus ad bellum and jus in bello

• JAB When (if ever) is resort to armed force
  justified?
• JIB What are the rules governing right conduct
  in war?

12
Jus ad bellum-criteria

• Just cause
• Right intention
• Legitimate authority
• Last resort
• Reasonable hope of success
• Proportionality
• Open declaration

13
UN Charter

• Paragraphs 42 and 51 of the UN Charter outline
  the conditions for when use of military force may
  be legal.
• 42 states that Should the Security Council
  consider that measures provided for in Article 41
  would be inadequate or have proved to be
  inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea,
  or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or
  restore international peace and security. Such
  action may include demonstrations, blockade, and
  other operations by air, sea, or land forces of
  Members of the United Nations.
• 51 states that Nothing in the present Charter
  shall impair the inherent right of individual or
  collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs
  against a Member of the United Nations, until the
  Security Council has taken measures necessary to
  maintain international peace and security.
  Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this
  right of self-defence shall be immediately
  reported to the Security Council and shall not in
  any way affect the authority and responsibility
  of the Security Council under the present Charter
  to take at any time such action as it deems
  necessary in order to maintain or restore
  international peace and security.