PY201 Just War Theory

aggression

any violation of the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of an independent state

aggression justifies defensive war; only the defending side is just in fighting (other states may join the defending state, because aggression is a crime against society as a whole)

the legalist paradigm

1. there exists an international society of independent states

2. recognized states are entitled to territorial integrity and political sovereignty

3. use of force or imminent threat against a state constitutes aggression, which is a criminal act

4. aggression justifies a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by any other member of the international system

5. an aggressor can be repulsed and punished for its actions

appeasement

giving in to the aggressor(s) to avoid war

preventive war

fought to maintain the balance of power, or to stop what is thought to be an even distribution of power from shifting into a relation of dominance and inferiority

preemptive attack

an attack that is initiated due to evidence of an imminent enemy attack

words not supported by actions and military preparation associated with arms races do not warrant preemption

a manifest intent to injure, a degree of active preparation that makes intent a positive danger, and a general situation in which waiting greatly magnifies risk warrants preemption

Stuart Mill

- states are self-determining communities whether their internal processes are free or not

- people have the governments they deserve; intervention takes away their right to revolt on their own

- internal freedom of a political community can only be won by the members of that community

- secessionist movements can be aided from the outside if they have demonstrated the desire to fight for self-determination; counter-intervention is also acceptable

- military action against imperial or colonial repression is justified; only domestic tyrants are protected from intervention

- when insurgents have established control over a significant portion of the territory or population, outsiders must remain neutral; once neutrality is breached by one, others are justified in following (i.e. self-help test)

- when a government threatens the well-being of a substantial part of the population, it loses its legitimacy and humanitarian intervention is warranted; the course of action should follow that called for by the oppressed

- intervening states may fight to win humanitarian wars; in all other instances, the only fight to restore the original balance that was destroyed by the first breach of neutrality

soldiers

- soldiers gain war rights, but they lose the right to life and liberty; war conventions are put in place to ensure that noncombatant rights are protected

- soldiers are moral equals: as long as soldiers follow the established rules of war, they are not considered criminals, regardless of whether the war they fight is just or not

Sidgwick

- principle of utility - actions in war can only be justified if they make a significant contribution to victory

- principle of proportionality - actions, even if they lead to victory, can only be justified if the harm they cause in the process is not excessive

nonthreatening soldiers

soldiers have surrendered the right to life and can be killed even when in a nonthreatening position; however, soldiers are generally reluctant to kill enemy soldiers when they do not appear to pose a threat

this feeling stems from the realization that enemy soldiers are similar to oneself and the idea that shooting a man who is singled-out and unaware of the danger is unfair

limitations of noncombatant immunity

- when necessary, workers in a factory that produces war-specific goods can be attacked and killed but only while in their work environment, not in their homes or elsewhere

- workers producing regular goods (e.g. food) are not subject to justifiable military attacks

- civilians ought not to be attacked if their activities can be stopped, or their products can be seized of destroyed, in some other way without significant risk

- rights owed to civilians are equal regardless of their nationality

soldierly duty

soldier have a duty to minimize the harm they inflict on the civilian population; additionally, soldiers have a duty to take on some additional risk in order to minimize civilian casualties

soldiers must make a positive commitment to save lives rather than just agree to harm as few as possible

double effect

it is permitted to perform an act likely to have evil consequences (i.e. the killing of noncombatants) provided these conditions are met:

1. the act is a legitimate act of war

2. the direct effect is morally acceptable (e.g. the destruction of military supplies, the killing of enemy combatants)

3. the actor's intention is good

4. the good effect compensates for allowing the evil (i.e. principle of proportionality)

Walzer adjusts condition 3 to state that the good must be achieved and the foreseeable evil reduced as much as possible

supreme emergency

war conventions may be overridden (i.e. the civilian population can be targeted) when total extinction is imminent (threat must be serious and close); in our world, individuals are sometimes murdered, but the enslavement or massacre of entire peoples would be unbearable

a measure may only be used if a less harmful alternative is unlikely to succeed and there is a serious, imminent danger from the enemy

Walzer's concluding thoughts

people have a right to not be forced to fight and a right to not be forced to continue fighting beyond the point where the war may justly be concluded

arguments for drones

1. alternatives (e.g. artillery, bombers) are less precise and more destructive; drones reduce civilian casualties

2. drones reduce the risks soldiers are exposed to; this makes humanitarian operations more sustainable

3. drones allow engagement short of full-scale war

4. drones are less expensive than human-operated tools

arguments against drones

1. faceless death denies the victim's humanity

CA: operators of planes and missiles don't come to face to face with their victims, yet they are accepted tools of war

2. unfair killing - victims are defenseless

CA: victims of submarines and artillery are also essentially defenseless

3. the drone operator kills but does not put his/her own life at risk and hence does not have the license to kill

CA: again, those who fire artillery or missiles also face little risk

4. war without virtue - ground combat is needed for courage, honor, etc. to manifest

CA: drones are unlikely to replace ground operations altogether

arguments against fully autonomous killer robots

1. robots lack the ability to discriminate between noncombatants and combatants in asymmetric wars

CA: robots can be programmed to react just as well, if not better than, humans

2. accountability

CA: the state can assume responsibility, apologize, and express proper respect for a robot's victim

3. lack of emotion removes some of the central restraints on killing in war

CA: negative emotions play a destructive role in war and would not be present in robots

arguments against lethal autonomous weapons

1. autonomous weapons separate the killer and the victim, making killing psychologically easier

CA: artillery is distanced and accepted

2. decreased risk to soldiers encourages countries to go to war

CA: the other costs of going to war are still high and deter countries from doing so unless they believe they have no other choice

argument for targeted killing

targeted killing is a form of individualism, which does a much better job of distributing the self-defensive harm in accordance with moral responsibility

arguments against traditional just war theory

1. enemy prisoners of war are noncombatants; therefore, sparing them does not constitute fighting justly

2. just and unjust combatants are not moral equals, because the just combatants have not yet committed any acts to forfeit their right not to be harmed

implications of the revisionist view

1. unjust combatants act wrongly when they harm just combatants even if they are not responsible for their unjust war

2. states who initiate unjust wars make it impossible for their soldiers to fight in a morally permissible way

3. this view does NOT imply that all unjust combatants are blameworthy for fighting or that they should be punished for doing so

realism

states act in self-interest

pacifism

pacifists do not believe that the long-term effects of war outweigh the damage cause by its means

terrorism

fails to acknowledge the innocence of civilians and treats them as legitimate targets

jus ad bellum

the conditions under which states may resort to war or the use of force

jus in bello

the component of war doctrine that governs how war is fought

just post bellum

the body of laws, norms, and principles that apply during the transition from war to peace