Quick Vocab Test What do these words mean? Pacifism Just war Jus ad bellum Jus in bello Jus post bellum

WAR APPLIED ETHICS “War is a necessary evil!” “War can never be justified!”

Just War While warfare has never lacked it’s enthusiasts, most theorists would sympathise with the sentiments of the poet Charles Sorley, writing in 1915, a few months before his death, aged 21 at the battle of Loos: ‘There is no such thing as a just war. What we are doing is casting out Satan by Satan.’ However, many would agree that, while war is always an evil, some devils are worse than others. Yes, war is to be avoided if possible, but not at any cost. It may be the lesser of two evils; the motive may be so compelling, the cause so important, that recourse to arms is morally justified. In these circumstances, war can be just war.

An introduction The philosophical debate over the morality or war, is just as relevant today as ever! The conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity in the 4 th century called for a compromise between the pacifist leanings of the early church and the military needs of imperial rulers. Augustine urged such an accommodation, which was taken up by Aquinas, who developed the now canonical distinction between ‘jus ad bellum’ and ‘jus in bello’. (more about these two next!) Debate in just war theory is essentially structured around these two ideas. If something has canonical status, it is accepted as having all the qualities that a thing of its kind should have

The solution… Aristotle wrote that a war of self-defence was just. St Augustine of Hippo justified the use of war to defend the Church against those who threatened the faith. He developed the idea of Just Cause. St Thomas Aquinas drew together the strands of Christian thinking on war and listed right authority, just cause and just intention as the key moral dimensions. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century Hugo Grotius and others added proportionality, last resort and reasonable chance of success. This set of principles became the established criteria for Just War Theory and was accepted formally by the RC Church. The ‘rules’ of a just war can be divided into two.

Aquinas’ distinction Jus Ad Bellum Justice in the move to war, the conditions under which it is morally right to take up arms. Jus In Bello Justice in war, rules of conduct once fighting is underway. (Conducted Justly)

Jus ad bellum Jus ad bellum refers to the rules concerning the declaration of war, and includes: Lawful Authority (Augustine/Aquinas) - War should be declared by the proper authority Just Cause (Augustine/Aquinas) - A nation should have a justifiable reason for declaring war Right Intention (Aquinas) - The outcome being sought should be noble, generally to bring about peace Last Resort (Grotius) - Every effort should have been made to resolve a conflict diplomatically, without the use of force Proportionality (Grotius) - The damage caused by going to war must not be greater than the good achieved Likelihood of success (Grotius) - there should be a good chance of success These criteria have remained broadly unchanged for centuries, although specific details have altered. For example, the UN Charter states that the UN should authorise any use of force beyond repelling an immediate armed attack against a sovereign territory. Some nations, however, do not recognise the UN's authority.

Jus in bello (Just Method) ‘Civilians in war' - that innocent people should not be targeted. (Some commentators speak of 'civilians' or 'non-combatants' here) 'Proportionality' – Military force should be proportional to the wrong endured and the outcome sought. Minimum force should be used to achieve the desired ends ‘Weaponry’ – Augustine and Aquinas had assumed that war would take place on a battlefield. With advent of chemical weapons etc – can there be just use of weapons?

Jus post bellum Today, what happens after the war is considered just as important. It can only be moral if: Its results have been carefully considered The result is proportional to the reasons for war in the first place The result can be ultimately successful

Jus in bello & Jus ad bellum Clearly it is possible for a just war to be fought unjustly, and an unjust war justly. In other words, the requirements of jus ad bellum and of jus in bello, in particular, overlap with the subject matter of international law, and infringements on both winning and losing sides should be in principle assessed as war crimes (Geneva conventions)

Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons Due to the nature of these weapons, it is generally agreed that the Jus in Bello criteria above cannot be met if chemical, nuclear or biological weapons are used. Obviously a lot depends on the nature of these weapons, and the term 'nuclear weapon' can apply to a broad range of devices. Where weapons kill indiscriminately, there are real concerns. In 2006, cluster bombs were dropped on Lebanon. Only 40% of these exploded on contact, leaving more than half unexploded. Just like land-mines, these are still causing serious disability and death to innocent people, especially children, and will for many years to come. These sorts of weapons are also seen as a violation of Jus in Bello.

To do well in the exam you will need to; Not make up your opinion in advance. Each new conflict should be looked at and judged according to the specifics of that conflict; Know the Just War criteria off by heart, and be aware of where these criteria have come from; Be able to apply these in an objective way to the conflict you are looking at. Too often, these criteria are simply used to justify a decision that's already been made; Some scholars claim that the Just War criteria need to be updated - that they simply don't apply in modern war-fare. You need to understand why they say this, particularly post-9-11 and with the specific issue of terrorism, perhaps on the use of drones in modern warfare? As an ethics student, you need to understand what different ethical theories would say about individual conflicts and modern warfare in general.

Use your text books to complete the worksheet on Just War Theory.

Which criteria do the quotes match up to? Can you remember the criteria of Just War theory?

Label each quote with the condition for Just War Theory it correlates with. Stretch: Are these Jus ad Bellum or Jus in Bello criteria? Which criteria are missing? The authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. Aquinas Summa Theologica Condition:__________ ____ Aquinas Summa Theologica Condition:__________ ____ Aquinas Summa Theologica Condition:__________ ____ The Catholic Church Condition:__________ ____ These are Jus__________. The missing criteria are: Jus ad Bellum: Those who are attacked because they deserve it on account of some wrong they have done. There must be a real and certain danger. For the advancement of good and avoidance of evil. The good that can be done must be balanced against the evil that will most likely occur.

“...the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged” St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica AUTHORITY

“...those who are attacked because they deserve it on account of some wrong they have done” St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica CAUSE

“...a real and certain danger” The Catholic Church CAUSE

“...advancement of good, avoidance of evil” St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica INTENTION

J Is it for real Justice? U What Ultimately results? S Who Starts it? T Has all else been Tried? W Will there be a Winner? A Can too much force be Avoided? R What is the Real aim?

Summary JWT theory is an attempt to make war ethical All of the criteria must be met for a war to be just. There are 3 main categories: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum. Main thinkers include Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas and Grotius (you should know the contributions they made) An example of a modern war applied to JWT

‘Just war theory has no serious weaknesses’ Discuss (10 marks) TASK Colour code the arguments with one colour for and one colour against JWT. Stretch: some arguments may apply specifically to certain criteria so try to label them. Your homework is to use what you have learnt to complete the 10 mark question in timed conditions. OBJECTIVE: Most should be able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Just War Theory (AO2)

Clear cut and flexible so can be adapted over centuries to remain relevant. Allows the defence of the defenceless. Recognises the necessity of action against an aggressor. Permits violence, which is morally wrong. Unrealistic – the strong and powerful always win. Too simplistic and ambiguous to apply. Weapons of mass destruction and terrorism need a totally new approach. It tries to protect innocent victims. It is impossible in modern warfare to distinguish soldier and civilian. Rejects the view there are no rules of conduct in warfare. Prevents excess and unnecessary loss of life. It is open to abuse: you could justify most things. The UN can do very little to prevent unjust wars. Delaying warfare can give the other side advantages and waste time whilst injustices occur. Combined wisdom of many thinkers and philosophers. A universal theory. During warfare a soldier may not have time to decide the appropriate action to take: quick decisions must be made and this prevents just action. What counts as success? Isn’t it unjust not to even try and win?