All is Fair in War? Just War Theory and American Applications Chris Sabolcik GSW Area II
Quickchat with Colleagues Brainstorm a military conflict that you consider to be justified, if one exists. Also, consider a military conflict that you consider to not be justified, if one exists. What differentiates the two?
Some Big Questions What is war? Who defines war? What, if any, are morally good reasons for going to war? What, if any, are morally good ways of acting during war?
Turn and Chat: How should we define war? War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war) Brian Orend, Univ. of Waterloo
From Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature Figure 6-4
From Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature Figure 6-2
Major American Wars and Total American Revolution: (1775-83) US dead: 25,000 total; British dead: 5,000 War of 1812: (1812-1815) US: 15,000; British: 11,000 Mexican-American War (1846-8) (manifest destiny): US: 13,000; Mexico: 16,000 Civil War: (1861-5) Union: 365,000 ; Confederacy: 260,000 Spanish-American War: (1898) US: 3,000; Spain:10,000 Casualities World War I: (1917-8) Allies: 5,500,000; Central: 16,000,000 World War II: (1941-5) Allies: 61,000,000; Axis: 12,000,000 Korean War: (1950-3) US: 178,000; N. Korea: 350,000 Vietnam War: (1962-73) US: 58,000; N. Vietnam: 1,170,000 Wars on Terror: (2001-) US: 9,000; Iraq: up to 1,700,000; Afghanistan: 249,000
War in American Government Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: [The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water "Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution which refers to the president as the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States' has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress. Thomas Woods, historian
Jeff McMahan, Rethinking the Just War (NYT: NOVEMBER 11, 2012) Within the United States people hold radically opposing views on abortion, sexual relations, the fair distribution of wealth and many other such issues. The disagreements extend from the particular to the general, for in most areas of morality there are no commonly recognized principles to which people can appeal in trying to resolve their disputes. But there is at least one contentious moral issue for which there is a widely accepted moral theory, one that has been embraced for many centuries by both religious and secular thinkers, not just in the United States, but in many societies. The issue is war and the theory is just war theory.
Brief Histories and Contexts of Just War Theory Early Origins: Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine Medieval Thinkers: Aquinas, Catholic Doctrine Renaissance: Hugo Grotius, Francisco de Vitoria Contemporary Developments: UN Charter, Geneva Convention Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius: Foundations for JWT in Western thought since 4 th Century
3 Big Categories in JWT JUS AD BELLUM: The conditions required for justly going to war; the right to go to war. JUS IN BELLUM: The conditions required for the just conduct of war; the right conduct in war. JUS POS BELLUM: The conditions required for ending a war and its aftermath. Both categories have requirements that are necessary and sufficient ALL OR NOTHING
JUS AD BELLUM right to war 1. JUST CAUSE a state may initiate a war only for the right reasons; a wrong received (Vitoria) e.g. Self-defense from external attack; the defense of others from such; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected 2. JUST AUTHORITY AND DECLARATION- must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice i.e. not a dictatorship and not in secret
JUS AD BELLUM 3. JUST INTENTION sets limit to extent of war and purpose Just cause for launching a war is not enough: the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be morally appropriate. Land acquisition, economic dominance, ethnic hatred, revenge all not just intentions 4. LAST RESORT all other options (diplomatic attempts, economic sanctions, etc.) must be exhausted
JUS AD BELLUM 5. PROPORTIONALITY the benefits of waging war should outweigh the costs A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. 6. PROBABLE SUCCESS a state actor must Prevents mass casualties and violence that proves to be futile
Turn and Chat which American wars violate any/all of the jus ad bellum requirements? American Revolution War of 1812 Mexican-American War Civil War Spanish-American War World War I World War II Korean War Vietnam War Wars on Terror 1. Just Cause 2. Just Authority 3. Just Intention 4. Last Resort 5. Proportionality 6. Probable Success
Applications Today?
Applications Today? 1. Just Cause 2. Just Authority 3. Just Intention 4. Last Resort 5. Proportionality 6. Probable Success Bush Doctrine right to militarily intervene against nations harboring terrorism Humanitarian Intervention Serbia/Kosovo (1998-9) United Nations Involvement and National Sovereignty
International Red Cross on Rules of Warfare Consider plausible and contentious points. https://whwpzzaefx9mww.youtube.com/watch?v=
JUS IN BELLUM right in war 1. JUST DISCRIMINATION combatants must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants Saturation bombing of residential areas (surprisingly popular in 20 th /21 st Centuries) JUST PROPORTIONALITY - combatants may only use force proportional to the end they seek Nuclear warfare generally considered disproportionate to ends
JUS IN BELLUM right in war 3. NO MEANS MALUM IN SE ( evil in itself ) militaristic actions and weapons that are inherently immoral or evil cannot be used in a just war e.g. dressing up soldiers like the Red Cross, uncontrollable biological warfare, torture 4. NO REPRISALS retributive acts that are caused by violations of jus in bellum cannot also violate jus in bellum rules i.e. no fighting immoral fire with immoral fire
Turn and Chat which American wars violate any/all of the jus in bellum requirements? American Revolution War of 1812 Mexican-American War Civil War Spanish-American War World War I World War II Korean War Vietnam War Wars on Terror 1. JUST DISCRIMINATION 2. JUST PROPORTIONALITY 3. NO MEANS MALUM IN SE 4. NO REPRISALS
Applications Today 1. JUST DISCRIMINATION 2. JUST PROPORTIONALITY 3. NO MEANS MALUM IN SE 4. NO REPRISALS Terrorism Drone Strikes Guerilla Warfare Total War Nuclear Warfare
JUS POST BELLUM - right after war (Walzer) 1. JUST CAUSE FOR TERMINATION - if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place AND the aggressor is willing to negotiate peace terms 2. DISCRIMINATION - the winning state must differentiate between state actors and civilians in its objective punishment. Punitive measures should be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.
JUS POST BELLUM right after war 3. PROPORTIONALITY AND PUBLICITY Peace settlements cannot serve as an instrument of revenge, AND be made publically. i.e. The vanquished do not lose their rights 4. REHABILITATION - The post-war environment provides a promising opportunity to reform decrepit institutions in an aggressor regime. Reforms are permissible but they must be proportional to the degree of depravity in the regime. e.g. demilitarization and disarmament; human rights education; structural transformation towards a minimally just society governed by a legitimate regime.
Turn and Chat which American wars violate any/all of the jus post bellum requirements? American Revolution War of 1812 Mexican-American War Civil War Spanish-American War World War I World War II Korean War Vietnam War Wars on Terror 1. JUST CASE FOR TERMINATION 2. DISCRIMINATION 3.PROPORTIONALITY / PUBLICITY 4. REHABILITATION
Applications Today
Applications Today 1. JUST CASE FOR TERMINATION 2. DISCRIMINATION 3. PROPORTIONALITY / PUBLICITY 4. REHABILITATION Terrorism Post-War States, Nation Rebuilding War Crimes Prosecution (Bin Laden, Hussein)
Objections, Alternatives to JWT Pacifism Belief that war of any kind is morally unacceptable and/or pragmatically not worth the cost. Pacifists extend humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants, especially conscripts.
Objections, Alternatives to JWT Realism - Promotes skepticism as to whether moral concepts such as justice can be applied to the conduct of international affairs. Moral concepts should never prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behavior. Instead, a state should place an emphasis on state security and self-interest.
Final Questions to Consider Are rules for just war viable in the 21 st Century? Is a just war desirable? Should we institute reparations for unjust wars perpetrated? How do we account for changing patterns in military engagement? Can we codify these rules and enforce them across international boundaries? Can we revisit past conflicts and judge them by contemporary standards of morality?
Further Readings Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry on War: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ Just War," Alexander Moseley The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, http: //www.iep.utm.edu/justwar Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer, 1967. Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2011