Misplaced Pages

Just war theory

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 144.162.95.211 (talk) at 19:47, 3 April 2006 (→Challenging Just War theory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:47, 3 April 2006 by 144.162.95.211 (talk) (→Challenging Just War theory)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Just War theory is the 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.

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). (Source: Just Cause Revisited])

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.

Just War theory has ancient roots. The Song of Deborah in the 5th chapter of the Hebrew Bible's Book of Judges discusses late Bronze Age conceptions of what distinguishes a "just" holy war. Cicero discussed this idea and its applications. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius later codified a set of rules for a just war, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications.

Why was Just War seen as necessary?

For thousands of years, war has been seen as an unpalatable, abhorrent but inevitable event. In Western history, one of the enduring questions has been: can the use of violence be ever morally justifiable to protect and preserve values? Are there situations or conditions where killing is a moral requirement? If killing can ever be justified, what, if any, moral restrictions should be placed? Just War theory, in essence, is an attempt at justifying war, or an act of war.

While Just War theory holds that killing is, in a general sense, morally unacceptable, it also recognizes that war is inevitable between states and will lead to deaths. Just War theory attempts to define conditions and situations in which the killing of others becomes a moral obligation. The main concerns of Just War theory are the protection of innocents (non-combatants), the creation of rules which can minimize deaths, and the waging of wars within defined rules. A Just War, therefore, is not merely defined by purely utilitarian criteria, but also by their means, principles and virtues.

Christian Just War Theory

Saint Augustine may have been the first to detail Christian Just War Theory. His description was essentially identical to the criteria listed above, and was influential in how the theory has been explained since his time.

Some Christians have also made the example of Deuteronomy 20:8 to be a fundamental precondition for a Just War. This verse allows anyone in the military to go home before any battle without punishment if they do not desire to fight the particular battle. This belief makes the use of a military draft to be automatic proof that the war for which it is used would be unjust. It is additionally contrary to the modern military system of enlistments defined in years or tours of duty because these do not allow soldiers to individually decide the rightness of each battle. However some have argued that the verse refers only to those that are "faint hearted", thus not including those known as conscientious objectors.

When is a war just by the criteria of Just War Theory? (Jus ad bellum)

In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum):

  • 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;
  • 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 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.
  • Last Resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Note that these are only the most typical conditions cited by just war theorists; some (such as Brian Orend) omit Comparative Justice, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Conducting a Just War (Jus in Bello)

Once war has begun, Just War theory also directs how combatants are to act:
(Jus in bello)

  • 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. A certain amount of force must not be used if a lesser amount of force would accomplish the same goals. 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.


Ending A War: Jus Post Bellum

In recent years, some theorists have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns the regulation of the process of terminating war, and the transition from war to peace. One of the main proponents of jus post bellum is Brian Orend, who proposes the following rules:

  • 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.

Challenging Just War theory

There have been several theories that have challenged Just War theory. Also, some have claimed the Just War theory is impractical in real-war situations. fuck

Alternative Theories

  • 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 behaviour. 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.
  • Pacifism - Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unjust. One argument pacifists have made against Just War theory is that Just War theory advocates the protection and sanctity of innocent lives, yet during war the lives of innocents cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, unless the lives of innocents can be guaranteed, war cannot be justified under any grounds.
  • "Just" Wars that violate Just Wars principles. Many ideologies agree with the tradition that war should be fought only if done for a just cause but reject most if not all of the other criteria of the tradition. The Marxist tradition can be seen as part of this category. For Marxists the only criteria is whether a war is "progressive" (ie just within their terms) and it is irrelevant how costly the war may be. Husayn bin Ali is celebrated for his pursuit of his "just" claim to the caliphate despite the fact his rebellion was doomed to failure. However Husayn's rebelion was an unjust war by the criteria of the Just War tradition because it violated the principle that there must be a reasonable chance of success.
  • 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.
  • Militarism - Militarism refers to the belief by some that war is not inherently bad, but rather can be a beneficial aspect of society. This theory does not hold much traction among many mainstream theorists, however.
  • 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 not a problem if the "just authority" is interpeted more widely such as "the will of the people" or similar.

Just War Theory and Real-War Situations

While combatants are morally responsible for discriminating between enemy combatants and non-combatants, there are times when such discrimination is impossible. Tactics such as “assurance shots” or “double taps” – when soldiers fire into downed enemy combatants – to prevent any actions that may jeopardize their security violates the law of war . While soldiers, upon coming across an injured enemy combatant, are obliged to disarm the combatant, check their medical status and call for medical assistance, there are situations when doing so would place the soldiers in grave danger. There is also the danger of enemy combatants attacking soldiers, such as shooting them in the back.

In modern warfare, proportionality as prescribed in jus in bello can be difficult to achieve, due to the tendency of placing military targets within civilian areas. Therefore, there are times when civilian casualties will occur. The critera of proportionality uses the concept double effect – that is, one may undertake military operations aimed at legitimate objectives or targets, despite the operation having foreseeable negative consequences, such as civilian casualties. The negative consequences must be proportionate to the military gain. Thinkers within the Just War tradition would accept that there is a threshold beyond which the negative consequences outweigh any other considerations, even the danger of defeat. Theorists differ as to how strictly the Just War criteria should be interpreted on this point.

The condition of proportionality is sometimes seem as in conflict with the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force. However Powell is using force in a completely different sense. A quote from Ambrosius may illustrate the difference. Taking an example of a traveler coming to the aid of a fellow traveler who has been attacked by a robber he says "At the same time, the Christian should use no more force than necessary to subdue the attacker, for that person too is someone for whom Christ died. Charity thus justifies the resort to force in defense, not in self but of the other; yet at the same time it limits the force that can be used against the evildoer to what is necessary to end the evil." Hence minimum force is used here in the ethical sense of minimum harm and so does not in principle conflict with the Powell doctrine which is a military not a moral doctine.

Just War theorists

See also

External links

  • Charles, J. Daryl. Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition. InterVarsity Press, 2005.
  • Small, Brad. Thomas Aquinas "The Just War Theory." The Lincoln-Douglas Great Philosopher Library Series.

Against:

Categories: