Just War Theory

Origins of the Just War Theory Western Origin Developed over time Romans affirmed right-authority and proportionality Influenced by Christianity Late middle ages before concept is completed and incorporated Not developed in any single case, overtime Third century BC number of elements in place Early Christian contributions came from Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and Ambrose. For example neither the Romans nor Augustine had any concept of non-combatant immunity, not until 10th century before this was incorporated.

Just War Theory Best conceived as cultural consensus Theory rests on Nine Propositions Seven in the jus ad bellum category; Going to war Two in the jus in bello category; Prosecuting war So what are these criteria The following is the criteria for Rightness or justice in going to war.

Just War Criteria: Rightness or Justice in going to War Just Cause Competent Authority Comparative Justice Right Intention Last Resort Probability of Success Proportionality of Ends Just Cause: war permissible only for protection and preservation of value, must be a real and present danger to innocent life, conditions of decent life, or securing human life Competent authority: entity declaring war must be the responsible rep of a politically sovereign body, cannot be waged by private groups of individuals Comparative justice: Rights and values involved must justify death and destruction of war Right intention: Intent must be in accord with the cause, thus no sides issues, ie Oil or territorial enhancement Last resort: all peaceful alternative must have been attempted Probability of success: must have rational basis, enormous loss in fact of certain defeat rarely justified Proportionality of ends: total cost of war must not be greater than the benefits achieved from war

Just War Criteria: Rightness or Justice in Prosecuting War Proportionately of means Discrimination/non-combatant immunity Proportionately of means: the means used in waging of war should not be such as to cause unnecessary harm Discrimination: non-combatants should be protected from direct and intentional harm Over the centuries there has been a shift from the classical theory toward a legal basis for the intitiation, what has cause the shift

Just War According to Aquinas Those who wage war justly aim at peace! Three criteria need to be met: Authority of the ruler Just cause Rightful intention

Shift Towards Legal Basis Protestant Reformation Expanding International Law War becoming more Deadly De-emphasis of Chivalry General shift from jus ad bellum to jus in bello Rise of National Sovereignty Protestant Reformation weakened the unity of peoples based on common religious beliefs. Discovery of the new world led to rethinking and expanding national law War becoming more deadly with the spread of firearms Composition of armies was being transformed from nobility to the lower classes thus with a deemphasis on the laws of chivalry. By the 18th century these factor resulted in limited warfare, limits in goals, methods, and combatants After the bloody Catholic / Protestant war growing consensus that war must not encompass ideological or religious differences The shift most effected by the rise of nation-state systems, nationalism , and sovereignty. Necessary because the concept of sovereignty made inherent the right to wage war. Thus until the international community was developed and organized war viewed as private fight between countries. Shift was become more apparent in 20th century

Legal Basis in 20th Century De-emphasis of Sovereignty; Thinking in terms beyond the nation state Creation of League of Nations Kellogg-Brian Pact of 1928 Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal United Nations the legal basis for use of force is found in the UN charter Sovereignty began to become less powerful, genocides such as the holocaust of WWII which took place within the boundaries of the state with governments turning against its one, people began to rethink their views. Safety and self interest are not guranteed by classic just war thinking, because the interests of nation states can be defined to make any cause seem to be just, at least to the offensive. Thus justify Nazis and Serbs. All of these reason eventually led the international community t create the League of Nations; a serious attempt to restrict the right of nations to resort to force. War now seen as a transgression against the international good. League members the international community would take action to prevent war. Kellogg Briad pact condemned war as solution for international controversies and renounced it as an instrument of policy. However the pact lacked enforcement mechanisms. Nuremberg- defined crimes against peace, was the criminalization of aggression, Leaders held accountable by international community, stripped away sovereignty as justification and cover for crimes against peace Today; The United Nations is the basis for the legal use of force and guidelines are found in its charter

Article 2, Section 4 “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” What does this mean?

Article 51 “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of the individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security” So what does this mean

United Nations Charter Essentially allows only one cause of war: The cause is self defense in response to aggression Nations can defend themselves and other nations may come to the defense of nations which are the victims of aggression See any problems with this?

Problems with Charter Does not require armed intervention to halt human right abuses including genocide Reluctance to act until the number of victims reaches staggering proportions Sovereignty rights are more important than prevention of genocide Stems from lack of sanctions in the international community This can be seen in Cambodia, where Pol Pot and the Khemer Rouge slaughtered millions of their own, and the world ignored the situation. Other examples? Charter Article 2 Section 4, in cases above analogous to a father slavishly obeying the speed limit while his child is bleeding to death. Another set of guidelines was founded by Michael Walzer. The shift towards a legal basis is best summarized in his book Just and UnJust wars which is based on international laws, treaties, and the provision of the UN.

Legalist Paradigm Concept of Michael Walzer in Just and Unjust Wars Based on international laws, treaties, and provisions of UN Only one reason for fighting; Defense of Rights All others are ruled out Thus preventive wars, commerical wars, war of expansion and conquest, religious crusades, revolutionary wars, military interventions are all barred absolutely. Paradigm based on numerous provision the following are some of the key provisions.

Key Provision of 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 Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty of territorial integrity or another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international society Nothing but aggression can justify war Once the aggressors state has been repulsed, it can also be punished These are the baseline, the model and the fundamental structure for the moral comprehension of war. Can anyone see problems with this paradigm?

Problems with Legalist Paradigm Only self-defense or mutual defense in response to aggression can justify resort to force Inability to deal with violence initiated by states against their own citizens Primacy afforded to sovereignty rather than to human rights Failure to differentiate between combatant and non-combatant Inability to deal, reinforce by those who attempt to legtimize terrorism in pursuit of the parochial cuase by making it the moral equivalent of taxing the wealthy Failure to differentiate between combatant and non-comabtant in insurgencies which gives guerrillas an advantage and leads to death of non-combatants, which is a violation of the law of war laid out by Hague and Geneve conventions A lot of the same problems as UN Charter; Another set of guidelines was put forth part in response to the inadequacy of the Legalist paradigm.

Weinberger Doctrine Stemmed from: Lessons learned in Vietnam War Sense of paralysis the U.S. felt following the war Inadequacy of the legalist paradigm Emergence of the Reagan Doctrine Following Vietnam, an intense analysis of the war began. A great deal of the doctrine stems from the failures of Vietnam Stand against communist and Marxist views

Criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine Only commit troops if it is deemed vital to our national interests or that of our allies If we do send troops, only do so wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning otherwise do no commit them at all If we do commit troops then we must have clearly defined political and military objectives Relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary Must have reasonable assurance that the public will support the action The commitment of U.S. Forces to combat should be the last resort These criteria outline an improved doctrine to justify war that has been reinforced in numerous instances since its enunciation? Anyone have examples?

Doctrine to Intervention Force used to deter terrorist acts in Libya Fall of the Soviet Union Successful intervention in Grenada All of these have since reinforced the doctrine in US policy. The change of power in the Soviet Union has redefined threats to the United States and this doctrine provides guidelines to handle such unconventional threats, however it does not come without its problems.

Problems with Weinberger What are they and who decides them? Flawed Constitutionally Hard to define, articulate, and legitimize Not enough forces to deal with a range of potential interests Always precarious in democracy May be much easier and save lives if done earlier Appeal to National Interests Commit force wholeheartedly Stating Clear Objectives Relationship between Objectives and Forces Public Support Last Resort National interests, intervention to impose democracy is as wrong as intervention to enforce the Brezhnev Doctrine. Rightful exercise is not for anything but against tyranny. Another problem what are they, and who decides. How can we avoid the temptation to find a national interest in every circumstance Wholeheartedly: Constitutional flaw, officers take only one oath, to uphold the constitution, support and defend. The constitution is the ethical reference point for any officer. Appoint President as CIC but gives congress power to make rules that govern the military. Thus the President is subject to these laws, thus congress could in fact impose restrictions and constraints similar to Vietnam and N Korea and it would be binding. The doctrine clearly calls to make this legislation a focus of dissension. This ultimately creates a major constitutional problem in the future. Public support always uncertain because failure to articulate the national interests, best hope for success clear simple goals, few casualites and success in battle however circumstances that faciliate this scenario are not always in tune with vital national interests. Thus the danger of fighting what is feasible instead of what is important. So what does this all mean?

Meaning of the Doctrine Application of the paradigm is not automatic, thus there is discrimination in its use Forestall the use of Force Intervention leads to a moral calculus Governments that violate rights and self determination are at intervention risk Legalist Paradigm creates problems; Lacks response to violence by non-state entities, no distinction between combatants and non, and lack of sanction to prevent genocide Every situation has to be looked at case by case basis, the role of caution is strong. Intervene in Panama but not Soviet Union, public threshold for casualties is not very high. Forestall the use of Force was his purpose Intervention leads to a comparison of consequences from intervention versus consequences from non intervention. Government in this century have slaughtered just as many people that have died in wars. Goverments which violate self determination and rights granted by UN charter are at risk of intervention Now that we have discussed the various doctrines lets apply them to current situations.

Weinberger and Panama Does the Weinberger Doctrine adhere to the invasion of Panama?

Analysis of Panama Was the invasion in the national interest of the United States? Four reasons why it was in the best interest: 1. Right to conduct rescue missions to protect U.S. military personnel, nationals and installations 2. Right of self-determination over Noriega’s government claims of sovereignty 3. Asserted legal right to protect its territorial integrity against the shipment of narcotics 4. Right to enforce provision of the Panama Canal Treaty The first provision is obviously met

Where the goals clearly defined both politically and militarily? Was an adequate force used in the invasion and did we go about the operation wholeheartedly? The operation involved 24,000 and the key military objectives were achieved in a matter of hours Where the goals clearly defined both politically and militarily? Prior to the invasion, the State Department issued a press guidance outlining the political goals of the operation. All goals were met and as previously stated the military goals were achieved in matter of hours.

Was in fact the invasion a last resort? Was the relationship between objectives and our forces continually reassessed and was there public support? Both of these criteria were met due to the short duration of the invasion, neither became necessary. Was in fact the invasion a last resort? The invasion was not an early or precipitous one

Apply to Bosnia National Interests Wholeheartedly Involvement Defined Goals and Objectives Continually Reassessed Public Support Last Resort

Critical Thinking Can Nuclear war ever be justified by any of the doctrines? How about Biological and Chemical Warfare? Terrorism? War over Oil?

Apply Classic Theory Weinberger Doctrine Just Cause Legalist paradigm Competent Authority Comparative Justice Right Intention Last Resort Probability of Success Proportionality of Ends Proportionately of means Discrimination/non-combatant immunity Weinberger Doctrine National Interests Wholeheartedly Involvement Defined Goals and Objectives Continually Reassessed Public Support Last Resort Legalist paradigm Independent States Territory integrity Force by one state against another act of aggression and is criminal Justifiable by war of self-defense or law enforcement Nothing but aggression can justify war Once the aggressor has been repulsed, it can also be punished

Conduct of War Ethics for the Military Leader, 2nd edition pages 411-472 Fundamentals of Naval Leadership pages 25-1 to 25-27, and 27-1 to 27-3 Ethics and Moral Reasoning for Military Leaders Lesson 21: pages 21-9 to 21-32 Case Study: pages 21 to 57