2. Justice in Action: Just War Theory

3. Just War Theory   Jus ad bellum: proposals to justify the use of force in a particular type of situation   Jus in bello: the justice of particular types of actions within a war, whether or not that war was justified   Aquinas: influential theory of just war

4. Terminology in today’s world   Preemptive war   Violence and terrorism   Jihadism   Pacifism

5. Overview Three principal areas:  The just conditions for entering into a war. –When is it just to go to war?  The just conditions for conducting a war. –What are we permitted to do in carrying out a war and what is forbidden as unjust?  The just conditions of peace. –What are the conditions of peace that insure the just conclusion of a war?

6. 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

7. 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-defence.  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.

8. Right intention  The war must be pursued for a just cause.  Unacceptable intentions: –Revenge –Political expansion –Land acquisition

9. 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?

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

11. 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.

12. 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?

13. Jus in bello: The Just Conditions for Conducting a War Three principal conditions: 1.Discrimination 2.Proportionality 3.No means that are evil in themselves.

14. Discrimination  The key requirement here is to discriminate between those who are engaged in harm (soldiers) and those who are not (civilians).  This has increasingly become an issue as countries such as the United States have turned to high altitude bombing campaigns that are more likely to put civilians at risk.

15. Proportionality  Onoe 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.

16. No Means Evil in Themselves  Orend lists a number of means that count as evil in themselves. –“mass rape campaigns; –“genocide or ethnic cleansing; –“torturing captured enemy soldiers; and –“using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled, like chemical or biological agents.”

17. Jus post bellum: Creating a Just Peace Brian Orend gives 5 conditions for a just peace: 1.Just cause for termination. 2.Right intention. 3.Public declaration and legitimate authority. 4.Discrimination. 5.Proportionality.

18. Just cause for termination  Orend: “a reasonable vindication of those rights whose violation grounded the resort to war in the first place.” –Unjust gains from aggression have been eliminated –Victims’ rights reinstated –Formal apology –Acceptance of reasonable punishment

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

20. Public declaration and legitimate authority  This requirement is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial.

21. Discrimination  Differentiate between –Political and military leaders –Military and civilian populations  Punish the elite responsible for prosecuting the war, not the uninvolved civilians.

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

23.  End