Just war

1
Just war

• Just war refers to the concept of warfare as
  being justified, typically in accordance with a
  particular situation, or scenario, and expanded
  or supported by reference to doctrine, politics,
  tradition, or historical commentary

2
Theory

• "Just War theory" refers to modern political
  doctrines which promote the view that war is
  "just" (ie. justice), given satisfactory
  conditions. As "conditions" tend to be variable,
  open to interpretation, and otherwise subject to
  political obfuscation, the concept of Just War
  itself, even apart from any specific formulated
  doctrines, is controversial.

3

• While proponents claim such views have a long
  "tradition," critics claim the application of
  "Just war" is only relativistic (Relativism
  expresses the view that the meaning and value of
  human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute
  reference. Relativists claim that humans
  understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors
  only in terms of, for example, their historical
  or cultural context.) , and directly contradicts
  more universal philosophical traditions such as
  the Ethic of reciprocity (The ethic of
  reciprocity, or the "The Golden Rule," is a
  fundamental moral principle found in virtually
  all major religions and cultures, which simply
  means "treat others as you want them to treat
  you." Its universality suggests an innate human
  altruism, and is arguably the most essential
  basis for the modern concept of human rights).

4

• the Just War tradition - is a philosophical
  "method" for determining whether a war can be
  justified from a moral standpoint and a tradition
  going back at least to Augustine of Hippo.

5

• The Just War tradition is first of all a set of
  criteria that act as an aid to determining
  whether or not a resort to arms is the morally
  correct step. On a more basic level it is a view
  of one that combines a moral abhorrence towards
  war along with a readiness to accept that
  sometimes it is the lesser evil. "It is an
  attempt to distinguish between justifiable and
  unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces.
  Just War theories attempt to conceive of how the
  use of arms might be restrained, made more
  humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim
  of establishing lasting peace and justice." 1

6

• That resort to war can only be just under certain
  conditions goes back at least to Cicero.
  2Augustine of Hippo3, Thomas Aquinas4 and
  Hugo Grotius later codified a set of rules for a
  just war, which today still encompass the points
  commonly debated, with some modifications

7

• The Just War tradition addresses the morality of
  the use of force in two parts when it is right
  to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad
  bellum) and what it is right to do in using such
  force (the concern of jus in bello). 5 In more
  recent years, a third category - Jus post bellum
  - has been added, which governs the justice of
  war termination and peace agreements, as well as
  the trying of war criminals.

8
When is a war just by the criteria of Just War
Theory?

• Just Cause Force may be used only to correct a
  grave public evil (e.g., a massive violation of
  the basic rights of whole populations) or in
  defense
• St Augustine categorised just cause into three
  elements that justified warfare
• defending against an external attack
• recapturing things taken
• punishing people who have done wrong
• A contemporary view of just cause was expressed
  in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said
  "Force may be used only to correct a grave,
  public evil, i.e., aggression or massive
  violation of the basic human rights of whole
  populations"

9

• Comparative Justice While there may be rights
  and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to
  override the presumption against the use of
  force, the injustice suffered by one party must
  significantly outweigh that suffered by the
  other
• Legitimate Authority Only duly constituted
  public authorities may use deadly force or wage
  war
• Right Intention Force may be used only in a
  truly just cause and solely for that purpose-
  correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right
  intention, while material gain or maintaining
  economies is not.
• Probability of Success Arms may not be used in a
  futile cause or in a case where disproportionate
  measures are required to achieve success
• Proportionality The overall destruction expected
  from the use of force must be outweighed by the
  good to be achieved.6
• Last Resort Force may be used only after all
  peaceful and viable alternatives have been
  seriously tried and exhausted.

10
Conducting a Just War

• Just War conduct should be governed by the
  principle of discrimination. The acts of war
  should be directed towards the inflictors of the
  wrong, and not towards civilians caught in
  circumstances they did not create. The prohibited
  acts include bombing civilian residential areas
  that include no military target and committing
  acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary
  civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids
  weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any
  reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb).
• Just War conduct should be governed by the
  principle of proportionality. The force used must
  be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the
  possible good that may come. The more
  disproportional the number of collateral civilian
  deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of
  a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war
  it initiated.
• Just War conduct should be governed by the
  principle of minimum force. This principle is
  meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death
  and destruction. It is different from
  proportionality because the amount of force
  proportionate to the goal of the mission might
  exceed the amount of force necessary to
  accomplish that mission.
• Torture, of combatants or non-combatants, is
  forbidden.
• Prisoners of war must be treated respectfully.

11
Ending A War

• In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary
  Bass and Brian Orend, have proposed a third
  category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum
  concerns justice after a war, including peace
  treaties, reconstruction, war crimes trials, and
  war reparations. Orend, for instance, proposes
  the following principles
• Just cause for termination - A state may
  terminate a war if there has been a reasonable
  vindication of the rights that were violated in
  the first place, and if the aggressor is willing
  to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms
  of surrender include a formal apology,
  compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps
  rehabilitation.
• Right intention - A state must only terminate a
  war under the conditions agreed upon in the above
  criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor
  state must also be willing to apply the same
  level of objectivity and investigation into any
  war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
• Public declaration and authority - The terms of
  peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and
  the terms must be accepted by a legitimate
  authority.
• Discrimination - The victor state is to
  differentiate between political and military
  leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive
  measures are to be limited to those directly
  responsible for the conflict.
• Proportionality - Any terms of surrender must be
  proportional to the rights that were initially
  violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist
  crusades and any attempt at denying the
  surrendered country the right to participate in
  the world community are not permitted.

12
The Just War Tradition and the Iraq War

• In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq the
  question as to whether that war was a just war
  was posed. Many of those on both sides of the
  debate framed their arguments in terms of the
  Just War. They came to quite different
  conclusions because they put different
  interpretations on how the just war criteria
  should be applied. Supporters of the war tended
  to accept the US position that the enforcement of
  UN resolutions was sufficient authority or even,
  as in the case of the Land Letter, that the US
  president as a sovereign ruler could count as
  legitimate authority. Opponents of the war tended
  to interpret legitimate authority as requiring a
  specific Security Council resolution.1011
  Nelson Mandela indicated this view, suggesting
  the US position was effectively "if you are
  afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can
  go outside and take action and violate the
  sovereignty of other countries."

13
Challenging Just War theory

• Militarism - Militarism is the belief that war is
  not inherently bad, but rather can be a
  beneficial aspect of society. For an historic
  account of this doctrine see Japanese militarism.
  
• Realism - The core proposition of realism is a
  skepticism as to whether moral concepts such as
  justice can be applied to the conduct of
  international affairs. Proponents of realism
  believe that moral concepts should never
  prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behavior.
  Instead, a state should place an emphasis on
  state security and self-interest. One form of
  realism - descriptive realism - proposes that
  states cannot act morally, while another form -
  prescriptive realism - argues that the motivating
  factor for a state is self-interest.

14

• Revolution and Civil War - Just War Theory states
  that a just war must have just authority. To the
  extent that this is interpreted as a legitimate
  government this leaves little room for
  revolutionary war or civil war, in which an
  illegitimate entity may declare war for reasons
  that fit the remaining criteria of Just War
  Theory. This is less of a problem if the "just
  authority" is widely interpreted as "the will of
  the people" or similar. Certain types of civil
  war are specifically mentioned in Article 1.
  Paragraph 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to
  the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as covered by the
  international provisions of the Geneva
  Conventions namely those ... in which peoples are
  fighting against colonial domination and alien
  occupation and against racist regimes ..., this
  gives those fighting against such states the same
  status under international law and "just
  authority" as a legitimate government.

15

• Absolutism - Absolutism holds that there are
  various ethical rules that are, as the name
  implies, absolute. Breaking such moral rules is
  never legitimate and therefore is always
  unjustifiable. The philosopher Thomas Nagel is a
  well known supporter of this view, having
  defended it in his essay War and Massacre.
• Pacifism - Pacifism is the belief that war of any
  kind is morally unjust. Pacifists extend
  humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians
  but also to combatants, especially conscripts.