Reading for Today: Just War Theory (JWT)

1
Reading for Today Just War Theory (JWT) the
Ethics of War

• Objectives from reading
• Know the origin and conditions required of the
  state via Just War Theory
• To go to war
• To conduct the war
• To end the war
• Know the foundation of the Legalist Paradigm and
  the Theory of Aggression.
• Identify similarities and differences among
  classic JWT and the Legalist Paradigm
• Know the tenets of the Weinberger Doctrine
• Comprehend the challenges modern day terror and
  humanitarian threats pose for these theories.

• EMP (16 pages)
• The Moral Role of the Military Professional in
  International Relations (Lucas), pp. 221-223 The
  Justification of Going to War (Lucas), pp.
  225-229 Is It Always Sinful to Wage War? (St.
  Thomas Aquinas), p. 231 Law and Order in
  International Society (Walzer), pp. 233-239.

2
Just War Questions

• Why do we need to justify war?
• Because people will die
• Because we need to use our forces properly
• To whom do we need to justify war?
• American people
• International community
• Ourselves
• Our troops
• How do we justify war by what criteria?
• Does the character conduct of war in the 21st
  Century change how we justify war?

3
WORLD RELIGION VIEW

• Thou shalt not kill/murder. --- Judaism
  The Torah Exodus 20 13.
• Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be
  called children of God. --- Christianity New
  Testament Matthew 5 9.
• God does not love aggressors
• --- Islam Quran 2 190
• God loves those who are just. --- Islam
  Quran 60 8

4
Realpolitik
Politics or diplomacy based primarily on
practical considerations, rather than
ideological notions.
War must never be seen as a purpose to itself,
but as a means of physically forcing one's will
on an opponent (War is the continuation of
politics through other means).
- Carl Von Clauzewitz
-Vom Kriege (On War)
Addresses the practicality, but not the morality
of war
5
PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES
J W T (War is morally justifiable under certain
conditions, despite its potentially coercive and
destructive nature)
Pacifism (War is never morally justified)
Bellicism (War is always justifiable when used to
advance national interests)
6
Just War Terms

• Jus ad Bellum
• Jus in Bello
• Jus Post Bellum

• Just Cause
• the conditions under which war or the use of
  force may be justified
• Just Conduct
• ethical conduct in war, once war has been
  initiated
• Just Peace
• the termination of war and its armistice
  agreements.

7
St. Thomas Aquinas When is it permissible to
use force?

• Natural Law offers three basic criteria
• Declared by a legitimate authority
• Just cause
• Right intention
• to do good
• restoring peace,
• to avoid evil,
• deliberate killing of non-combatants

1225-1274 AD
Classical Just War Tradition
8
Four Additional Qualifications(Modern Just War
Theory)

• War is a last resort exhaust all other options
• Likelihood of success
• Proportionality of ends
• the value of the benefits sought or the harms
  redressed must be proportional to the sacrifice
  and damage to be incurred
• Just means
• a just end pursued via an unjust means loses its
  moral force
• (CWO Hugh Thompson at My Lai) Honor on the
  Battlefield

9
Two Modes of Discourse

• Note that Aquinas so-called classical Just War
  Tradition (JWT not a theory) has its roots
  in Plato, Cicero, St. AugustineSustained
  philosophical reflection about the necessary
  conditions on the use of lethal force
• A second, very distinct legalist tradition
  arises in the 16th-17th Centuries

427-347 BC 106-43BC 355-430 AD
10
The Legalist Tradition

• Francisco di Vitorias De Juri Belli (1539)
• Only reason to go to war is when harm has been
  inflicted
• No wars for religious conversion
• No targeting civilians
• No killing enemy prisoners
• Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law
  of War and Peace), 1625
• Pens the locus classicus or standard classic
  work on JWT
• Kant, To Perpetual Peace, (1795)
• Proposes a list of treaty-like principles to
  restrict conflict among states, e.g.,
• standing armies shall be gradually abolished
  (3)
• no nation shall forcibly interfere with the
  constitution and government of another (5)

11
International Law the Legalist Paradigm

• Reformation Wars Peace of Westphalia (1648)
• Just War doctrine permits too much
• The Domestic Analogy
• Nation-states as individuals with rights of
  Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity (cf. J.S.
  Mill On Liberty)
• Wars of Self Defense against aggression
• Wars of Law Enforcement
• (Collective Security)

12
Baseline Model Legalist Paradigm Walzer
identifies 6 propositions on Theory of
Aggression

• International society of independent states
• International law protects
• territorial integrity
• political sovereignty
• Aggression/use of force criminal act
• Nothing but Aggression can justify war
• Aggression justifies two responses
• self defense and
• law enforcement (allies)
• Aggressor states may be repulsed and punished

NOTE very sharp limitation on use of military
13
JUS AD BELLUM or Justice of War

• Just or Legitimate Authority
• Just Cause
• Right Intention
• Reasonable hope of success
• Proportionate
• Just goals or ends of war - via just means
• Waged as a last resort
• (Formal Declaration)

Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274 AD
Conditions under which just war is conducted
14
Jus Ad Bellum The Justice of WarJUST
(Legitimate) AUTHORITY

• Just war may only be waged by LEGITIMATE
  authority.
• In past eras Kings Emperors Sultans etc In
  present era Presidents Prime Ministers
  etcThese possessed the MORAL and LEGAL
  authority to wage war.
• It did not recognize the right of INDIVIDUALS,
  WARLORDS, STRONGMEN, MADMEN to declare war.
• In the present and future eras International
  Organizations

15
Jus Ad Bellum The Justice of WarJUST CAUSE

• Just Cause for war has been traditionally
  interpreted to be war conducted out of
  self-defense or in defense of a victimized
  nation.
• Some contemporary theorists have tried to narrow
  JUST CAUSE to merely defensive actions taken to
  address aggression, but traditionally, just
  causes have included
• Defense against attack
• Reclamation of something (like territory)
  unjustly seized
• The defense of peace violation of rights
• To address or redress evil or aggression.
• Causes which have never been considered just
• Wars for national gain or glory
• Wars fought for territorial expansion
• Wars fought to avenge past wrongs.

Whats in a name? Our Dec 1989 invasion of Panama
to oust Manuel Noriega was called Operation Just
Cause
16
Jus Ad Bellum The Justice of WarJust Intention

• Just wars are waged with the right intention.
  For Augustine, wars fought with a focus on the
  love of both neighbor and enemy are just
• to establish good order or correct an unjust
  order
• with the intent that good will result from the
  use of potentially deadly force
• to secure a just and lasting peace for all.

St Augustine of Hippo 354-430 AD
True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars
that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement
or cruelty, but with the object of securing
peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting
the good. ---Augustine
17
Jus Ad Bellum The Justice of WarREASONABLE HOPE
OF SUCCESS

• (Potentiality).
• However right the cause, or strong the courage
  and resolve of the people, just war theorists
  consider itimmoral to declare a war that risks
  the lives of combatants and non-combatants, and
  a societys infrastructure, if there is no
  reasonable chance for success.
• Potentiality dictates that lives should not be
  sacrificed for futile or unrealistic causes.

18
Jus Ad Bellum The Justice of WarProportionality

• The good to be achieved by war
• (or the values and goods to be protected or
  recovered by the use of deadly force)
• must be sufficiently important to OUTWEIGH the
  death, injury, and destruction to be caused by
  war.
• Proportionality received a lot of intention after
  the invention of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
• Some theorists argued that the destruction caused
  by nuclear weapons could never be proportionate
  to the good to be accomplished.

GOOD TO BE ACHIEVED versus THE HARM TO BE DONE
19
Jus Ad Bellum The Justice of WarJust Goals via
Just Means

• The ultimate goal of a just war is to
  re-establish peace.
• The peace established after the war must be
  preferable to the peace that would have prevailed
  if the war had not been fought.
• Tactics and weapons used in war must discriminate
  between combatants and non-combatants.
• Civilians are never permissible targets of war,
  and every effort must be taken to avoid killing
  civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified
  only if they are unavoidable victims of a
  deliberate attack on a military target.

Cpl Zach Bitner, a combat engineer with Charlie
Company, Combat Service Support Battalion 7, sets
up voting facility in Baghdadi, Iraq, Jan. 27,
2005 to elect the new National Assembly
legislative members who would draft the new Iraqi
Consitituion.
20
Jus Ad Bellum The Justice of WarLast Resort

• Some believe that a war can only be just if it is
  waged as a last resort.
• For them, war should not be waged if there is
  reasonable hope that non-violent means can be
  used to resolve the conflict
• Diplomacy, negotiation, compromise
• Economic sanctions
• other statecraft including international
  persuasion, etc
• Last Resort is a reminder that war is never
  entered into lightly just cause is not just
  license to use force.

--- ALL NON-VIOLENT MEANS HAVE BEEN TRIED
21
Jus Ad Bellum The Justice of WarFormal
Declaration

• Some hold to the belief that war must be declared
  to be just.
• While some question if this criterion is valid,
  there is a useful dimension to this category
  since it forces belligerents to clearly state
• their just cause,
• their intentions and goals,
• and the conditions under which the conflict may
  be terminated.
• This criterion allows for three dynamics in
  regards to war
• indicates to potential belligerents how war might
  be avoided because declaration outlines the
  grievances
• Affords other nations the opportunity to assess
  whether a cause is just or not - and thus act
  accordingly
• It dictates the will of the people to engage in
  the conflict.

The United States has not issued a formal
declaration of war since WWII
De Facto declarations? e.g. Joint Resolution
114 Oct 2002 Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
Senate 77-23 For vs Against House 296-133 For vs
Against
--- Presumption declared wars are more defined
22
Weinberger Doctrine

• Commit forces only in vital national interests
• Commit forces wholeheartedly with intent to win
• Have clearly defined political/military
  objectives
• Relationship between objective and resources must
  be appropriate and reassessed
• Need full support of American people
• Must be a last resort

23
Jus Post Bellum Justice After War

• Healing Mindset/Conduct
• Just Surrender Just/Humble Conduct
• Just Restoration
• Protector-ship Partner-ship Owner-ship
• Safeguarding the Innocent
• Respect for the Environment
• Post Bellum Justice
• Warrior Transition
• Learning the Lessons of War

Conditions under which just war is terminated
24
Just War Theory in 2012
Low Intensity Conflict
Military Operations Other Than War
Limited War
Peace Keeping

• Pre-emption
• Counter-terrorism
• Collective Security
• Humanitarian Intervention

Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is launched
from the guided missile cruiser USS Anzio.
25
Two types of anticipatory wars

• Preemptive War waged in the face of imminent
  act of aggression (typically measured in days,
  weeks or months).
• Preventive war waged to eliminate or mitigate
  potential or hypothetical threats in the more
  distant future (for example, destroying nuclear
  reactors in another country that could be used to
  create nuclear weapons).
• Preemptive wars have a long history (Aquinas,
  Grotius) and standing in international law/JWT,
  while preventive wars (until recently) have long
  been considered merely as wars of aggression.

Source Who Would Jesus Kill? By Mark J.
Allman, 2008
26
Jus ad Pacem The justice of peaceThe
Reluctant Interventionist G. Lucas

• Under what conditions do we engage in pre-emptive
  counter-terrorist or humanitarian intervention?
  
• The Reluctant Interventionist
• Interventionist imperative
• When a clearly recognizable injustice is in
  progress, and when we as international bystanders
  are in a position to intervene to prevent it,
  then it follows that we have a prima facie duty
  to intervene.
• Essential features
• Objectives are by definition unclear,
• Mission, success, and exit strategy are
  invariably poorly defined

27
Lucas Draft Provisions for Humanitarian and
Counterterrorist Interventions

• Intervention advocated in case of
• Grave violations of Human rights,
• Terror
• Grave violations of international law
• May use force in face of Impending actions
• Sovereignty may be overridden
• Must be approved by Collective International body
• In keeping with previous ideals
• proportionality, success, no national gain, no
  immoral conduct on battlefield

Attempt to formulate a workable program of
response to recognizable injustice or atrocity.
28
War in Iraq in 2003

• What was our justification for pursuing the war?

• What were the arguments against pursing the war?

29
September 2002 Perspective

• Containment has failed
• Deterrence will not work against a Saddam Hussein
  with WMD.
• International inspectors cannot insure that Iraq
  will not obtain WMD
• Finally enforcing 10 years worth of serious and
  flagrant violations of UN sanctions/demands
• Gross documented instances of attempted genocide
  (Kurds) and humanitarian rights violations
• Iraq is providing support for Al Qaeda and is a
  center for anti-American terrorism.
• The Iraqi people will be better off
• The patience of our Middle East allies is wearing
  thin

"America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is
disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To
thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations
arms inspectors four years ago."--New York
Times editorial, 8/3/02
30
Opposition's View (with benefit of hindsight)

• Questionable whether Saddam was initially
  supporting Al Qaeda
• Legality of removing Saddam
• Evidence of WMD looks contrived
• Lack of a UN mandate
• US acted unilaterally (mostly)
• Are the Iraqi people better off after 7 years?
• Actually destabilized the region
• Distraction from the War on Terrorism

Note Your arguments - both for and against the
war - reflect concepts addressed in Just War
Theory
31
JUST WAR TRADITION

• ARTICLE 51 UNITED NATIONS CHARTER Nothing
  in the present Charter shall impair the inherent
  right of individual or collective self-defence if
  an armed attack occurs against a member of the
  United Nations, until the Security Council has
  taken measures necessary to maintain
  international peace and security.

Just War Tradition is consistent with ideals of
Natural Law
Centuries of just war tradition are reflected in
the UN Charter
32
The Dilemma of Preemption

• President Bushs West Point Commencement
  Address (1 June 2002)
• Cold War strategies are obsolete
• Conventional deterrence Mutually Assured
  Destruction (MAD) strategies dont work against
  terrorists or non-state actors
• Must be prepared to undertake preemptive action
  against potential adversaries to protect lives
  liberties

New security strategy reaffirms Bush's
pre-emptive strike policy By Bill Nichols and
Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY WASHINGTON Undeterred
by an erosion of public support for the war in
Iraq, President Bush on Thursday reaffirmed his
first-strike policy against terrorists and rogue
nations and said Iran may pose the biggest
challenge to U.S. security. 3/16/2006 1013 PM
33
The False Dilemma of Defensive War

• There is no explicit limitation in classical JWT
  of war to self-defense or repelling aggression
• St. Thomas (STh II-II, Q40) discusses bellum
  offensivum,
• to regain stolen goods, to thwart and to punish
  organized evildoing, or to protect innocents from
  harm.

By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do
not create a problem, we reveal a problem
President Bush, Sept. 17, 2001
34
The Future of the Legalist Paradigm

• Walzers evaluates the limitations of this
  paradigm, proposes revisions to this baseline
  model.
• His original preface (p. xvii-xx) suggests that
  his is a summary of a moral, and not a purely
  legal, argument with a lengthy history.
• He argues that (his) Legalist paradigm
  needs to be revised w/these criteria
• Manifest intent to injure
• A degree of active participation that makes this
  intent a positive danger
• A general situation in which waiting, or doing
  anything other than fighting, greatly magnifies
  the risk

In Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer outlines
the general features of what he terms the
legalist paradigm (Ch. IV)
35
Just War in the 21st Century
http//www.youtube.com/watch?vZ75QSExE0jU

• As a theory, the legalist tradition is severely
  strained by recent developments
• Classical or philosophical JWT encounters no
  such fundamental, conceptual dissonance
• instead, it merely confronts the difficult
  question of whether intervention to
• prevent terror, avert humanitarian tragedy,
• halt organized evil-doing (Aquinas), enforce
  justice,
• protect vulnerable rights and liberties, or
  repair the ravages of injustice
• constitute just causes for war
• And if so,
• who or what in each case needs to be deputized to
  carry this out,
• whether non-violent or less destructive
  alternatives have been sufficiently explored and
  exhausted,
• whether the ends justify the means,
• whether such means can succeed in realizing their
  stated ends,
• and toward those ends, enforcing limitations on
  combatants that will ensure that the use of force
  will indeed promote, rather than frustrate, the
  cause of peace and liberty, or further the ends
  of justice

36
What struck you?

• Just or Legitimate Authority
• Just Cause
• Right Intention
• Reasonable hope of success
• Proportionate
• Just goals or ends of war - via just means
• Waged as a last resort

37
Is this different?

• Just or Legitimate Authority
• Just Cause
• Right Intention
• Reasonable hope of success
• Proportionate
• Just goals or ends of war - via just means
• Waged as a last resort

GEORGE W. BUSH, "GRADUATION SPEECH AT WEST
POINT" (1 June 2002) The terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, had a profound effect on the
nation, and a paradoxically vitalizing effect on
the new president, George W. Bush.
38
Divergent Ideals

• Just or Legitimate Authority
• Just Cause
• Right Intention
• Reasonable hope of success
• Proportionate
• Just goals or ends of war - via just means
• Waged as a last resort

• Separation of church and state
• Cause of freedom
• Law based on Natural Law
• Equal rights
• Respect for life

• State is secondary to the church
• Duty to compel the worlds submission to one true
  faith
• Law based on Revealed Divine Law
• Religious interpretation of proper role
• e.g., women

39
RELEVANCE OF JWT

• Helps guard against unjust conflict in the
  world
• Offers moral guidance to those who fight
• Directs that the goals of conflict remain those
  of establishing a just and lasting peace
• Helps warriors retain their humanity in one of
  our most inhumane activities war.

War is a deadly game civilized peoples seek
restraints.
40
Readings for Next Class Conduct of War/Honor on
the Battlefield

• EMP (2 pages)
• The Moral Code of the Warrior (Lucas), pp.
  301-302
• CSME (24 pages)
• Interdiction in Afghanistan (Schoultz), pp.
  17-24
• What the Hell Just Happened? (Webber Rubel),
  pp. 45-46
• Incident at a Roadblock (Anonymous), p. 47
• The Road to Basra (Cook Hamann), pp. 73-82
• Tiananmen Square (Rubel), pp. 89-91.
• Naval Law (3rd Edition)
• Justice in War (Jus in Bello), Law of Armed
  Conflict, pp. 229-232 (4 pages)