Lecture #6 Just War Theory

Introduction

Pair-Share Activity First, the students will individually write down what each quote means in their own words. Second, the students will discuss their interpretations in pairs. Third, the students will discuss whether they agree or not and why?

Quote One “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” James Madison, Political Observations, 1795  

Quote Two Pope John Paul II said “Today the horror and scale of modern warfare makes it totally unacceptable as a means of settling differences”.

Wars throughout History For centuries, different religions, cultures and countries have waged war for a variety of reasons: money hatred revenge power In the name of God

YouTube Clip Obama on Just War doctrine and emergence of unconventional warfare Findley Penn-Hughes Published on Apr 27, 2013 Running time of 6:18 minutes Extracts from Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Edited from full video, available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer...

What is Just War?

Famous Figures for Just Theory Body of thought developed by philosophers & theologians over centuries Key thinkers: St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, Michael Walzer Distinct from pacifism (assumes war can be justified under some circumstances)

Thomas Aquinas Theory from Doctors of the Church St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas Theory set out by Aquinas to make war and human dignity in war moral necessities

To provide guidance on… When war is justified Purposes To provide guidance on… When war is justified How one can fight in a just way

Laws of War Jus ad bellum (“law to war”) Jus in bello (“law in war”) • Deals with the reasons and justification for the use of force (for going “to” war) Jus in bello (“law in war”) • The real “Laws of War” • Deals with the conduct of war once joined

Laws of War Jus ad bellum (“law to war”) • Deals with the reasons and justification for the use of force (for going “to” war) Traditional considerations: • Declared by a "legitimate" authority. • Initiated for a good (just) reason • Employed as a last resort

Laws of War • Soldiers who surrendered should not be killed. General Principles • Force should be use to restrain & restrict adversaries, not kill • Soldiers who surrendered should not be killed. • Non-combatants (unarmed civilians) should not be targeted • Indiscriminate (no specific target) force & weaponry prohibited • Unnecessary suffering prohibited.

What are the Just Causes for War?

Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) Focuses on decision to go to war Key principles: Just cause (self-defense, defending allies, punishing aggressors, stopping genocide) Right intention (not self-aggrandizement) Last resort Legitimate authority Originally meant “sovereigns” (kings) Increasingly refers to democratic governments or even the UN Reasonable chance of success Proportionality (more good than evil must be expected to result)

Jus In Bello (Justice in War) Focuses on the conduct of the war Key Principles Discrimination (between civilians and combatants) What about “unlawful enemy combatants” who don’t play by the rules or identify themselves as combatants? (Geneva conventions and additional protocol I) Proportionality (e.g., not responding to a limited conventional attack by launching an annihilating nuclear strike)

Jus Ad Bellum: The Just Conditions for Going to War Just Cause Right Intention Proper Authority and Public Declaration Last Resort Probability of Success Proportionality

Just Cause

Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations Operation Overlord begins—June 6, 1944. The Allies fight to reclaim France from Nazi Germany.

Just Cause Protection from external attack is the first and foremost—and in the eyes of some, the only--just cause of war; based on the right of self-defense. Some have maintained the humanitarian intervention is also justified, where we go to war to save the lives of innocent people who are being attacked by an aggressor.

A class poll How many agree or disagree with the following statement? Direct annihilation of the enemy’s forces must always be the dominant consideration. Karl Von Klausewitz, 19th Century Philosopher A class poll

Right Intention

Right Intention The war must be pursued for a just cause. Unacceptable intentions: Revenge Political expansion Land acquisition

Right Intention Excludes motives such as revenge Prosecution of war crimes needs to be applied to all, not just the vanquished.

Proportionality

Proportionality Are the possible benefits (especially in terms of a just peace) proportional to the death, suffering, and destruction that the pursuit of the war will bring about?

Proportionality: all subsequent conflict must be proportional to the original damage inflicted; i.e. torture cannot be used in a war, nor nuclear weapons. Also, only enemy combatants should be fired upon. Civilians should not be harmed in any way.

Proportionality One should only use the amount of force that is proportional to the (just) ends being sought. This raises interesting issues in the use of massive air strikes against bin Laden by the United States.

Proportionality The vanquished do not lose their rights No ‘witch hunts’ Proportional to reasonable rights vindication

Probability of Success

Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. War is acceptable only when there is a strong chance of imminent victory and minimal casualties.

Probability of Success The rationale here is clear and simple: war is a great evil, and it is wrong to cause such killing, suffering, and destruction in a futile effort. Question: what about countries that feel they are resisting evil even when there is little or no chance of success? For example, small European countries being invaded by the Nazis.

Legitimate/Proper Authority

Proper Authority and Public Declaration Traditionally, only nations have the authority to declare war. Wars must be publicly declared, not pursued in secret. Question: Can terrorist groups be said to declare war? If not, is the response to terrorism really war?

Legitimate Authority: Only a duly constituted public authority; i.e. a nation’s military or reserve units, may use deadly force or wage war. No vigilante or militia groups are morally justified to fight private wars.

Last Resort

Last Resort If there are other means of achieving the same objectives, such as negotiations or economic blockades, they should be pursued exhaustively first.

Last Resort — War is only acceptable when all other peaceful means have been exhausted; i.e. diplomacy, sanctions, referenda

It is easier to make war than to make peace. Georges Clemenceau Diplomacy—countries meet in a neutral location; i.e. UN headquarters, and attempt to solve conflict peacefully Trade embargo/economic sanctions—a group of countries withhold vital goods and services to force the offending country to comply with the general will. What could a country or coalition do before engaging in combat?

YouTube Clip Debate: Is War Ever Justified? | Learn Liberty Published on Jun 6, 2013 Running time of 17:43 minutes Most wars seem to create costs that far outweigh their benefits, but is war ever justified? In this Learn Liberty debate, Prof. Bryan Caplan and Prof. Jan Ting disagree. Prof. Caplan argues that pacifism should be U.S. policy as the costs and benefits of war are too difficult to predict and innocent lives are almost certainly going to be lost. Prof. Ting argues that there are occasions in which war is necessary, such as against ideological or religious perspectives that cannot be reasoned with. He uses World War II as an example when U.S. military intervention did more good than harm. Prof. Caplan contends that this is difficult to measure. What do you think? Should military intervention be an option on the table? Why or why not?