Jump to content

Just war theory: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 30: Line 30:


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]].
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]].
HELLO LIZZIE
HELLO ADELA


== Conducting a just war (''jus in bello'') ==
== Conducting a just war (''jus in bello'') ==

Revision as of 16:36, 16 May 2007

Just war is a specific concept of how warfare might be justified, typically in accordance with a particular situation, or scenario, and expanded or supported by reference to doctrine, tradition, or historical commentary. The tradition began in the ancient Greek society, and was later developed by a number of Christian theologians. The just war tradition includes a great variety of thinkers who advocate different ways of employing shared concepts (just cause, good intentions, proportionality, discrimination, etc.) for purposes of ethical reflection and judgment about the use of force, and the tradition has been expanded to include non-traditional forms of warfare, such as guerrilla war and humanitarian interventions.

Theory

"Just War theory" encompasses modern political doctrines which promote the view that a specific war is just given satisfactory conditions. As "conditions" tend to be variable, open to interpretation, and otherwise subject to political obfuscation, the concept of Just War itself, even apart from any specific formulated doctrines, is controversial.[citation needed]

While proponents claim such views have a long tradition, critics claim the application of Just War is only relativistic, and directly contradicts more universal philosophical traditions such as the Ethic of reciprocity.[citation needed]

The Just War tradition is first of all a set of criteria that act as an aid to determining whether or not resorting to arms is the morally preferable course. On a more basic level it is a view that combines a moral abhorrence towards war and a readiness to accept that sometimes war is the lesser evil. "It is an 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." [1]

The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero. [2]Augustine of Hippo[3], Thomas Aquinas[4] and Hugo Grotius later codified a set of rules for a just war, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications. [citation needed]

The 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 is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello). [5] 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.

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

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

  • recapturing things taken
  • punishing people who have done wrong

A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"

  • 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 or maintaining economies 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.[6]
  • 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. HELLO ADELA

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. 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.

Ending a war: jus post bellum

In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, war crimes trials, and war reparations. Orend, for instance, proposes the following principles:

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.

Alternative theories

  • Militarism - Militarism is the belief that war is not inherently bad, but rather can be a beneficial aspect of society. For an historic account of this doctrine see Japanese militarism.
  • 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.
  • Just wars that violate Just Wars principles, effectively constitutes a branch of realism. 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" (by the Marxist historical-progression definition) 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 rebellion 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.
  • 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 less of a problem if the "just authority" is widely interpreted as "the will of the people" or similar. Certain types of civil war are specifically mentioned in Article 1. Paragraph 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as covered by the international provisions of the Geneva Conventions namely those ... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes ..., this gives those fighting against such states the same status under international law and "just authority" as a legitimate government.
  • 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.
  • Pacifism - Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unacceptable. Pacifists extend humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants, especially conscripts.[7]

The just war tradition and the Iraq War

See also: Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq

In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq the question whether the war was a just war was posed. Many of those on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in terms of the Just War. They came to quite different conclusions because they put different interpretations on how the just war criteria should be applied. Supporters of the war tended to accept the US position that the enforcement of UN resolutions was sufficient authority or even, as in the case of the Land Letter, that the United States as a sovereign nation could count as legitimate authority. Opponents of the war tended to interpret legitimate authority as requiring a specific Security Council resolution.[8][9]

Just war theorists

Additional reading

See also

Wikiquote has quotations related to Just war theory.
  • Charles, J. Daryl. Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition. InterVarsity Press, 2005.

Against

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Just_war_theory&oldid=131323955"