PY201 - Just and Unjust Wars

Realism

a domain of necessity

war is not about morals, rather its about doing everything you need to do to win

Pacifism

war is always immoral, people will die, etc. therefore we shouldn't go to war; Kantian, Utilitarian, Virtue

Just War Theory

War can be moral under certain conditions

Just War Conditions

1. War by authority of sovereign states

2. Just cause as in defense

3. Good intentions as in peace, no malicious intent

Walzer's opening move (rebuttal)

Strategy and morality reflect the world in the same way because both are languages of judgement and ask what we ought to do, thus there is a moral domain to war

Moral Reality of War

Jus ad bellum (justice of war) follows the state's actions

Jus in bello (justice in war) follows a soldier's actions

Where does a state get its rights from

Its common life

Conditions to go to war

1. To protect a states' territorial integrity

2. To maintain a states' political sovereignty

If these rights are violated a state has the right to war

The Legalist Paradigm

1. There exists an international society of independent states

2. This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members - above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty

3. Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act

4. Agression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international society

5. Nothing but aggression can justify war

6. Once the aggressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished

Domestic Analogy

States are like individuals who have rights therefore states like individuals have their own rights

What is a threat

1. manifest intent to injure

2. degree of active preparation

3. general situation in which waiting greatly magnifies the risk

First Revision - Preemptive Strikes

States may use military force in the face of threats (which are legitimate threats) of war, whenever the failure to do so would seriously risk their territorial integrity or political independence

Self determination

Right of the people to choose their own government, then political structure is determined

Second revision - Secession

states can be invaded and wars justly begun to assist secessionist movements (once they have demonstrated their respective character) meaning they have passed the self help test

Third revision - Counter-intervention

Intervenes to counter the interventions of another state after the self-help test is passed

Fourth revision - Humanitarian intervention/Rescue

Human intervention is justified when it shocks the moral conscience of mankind; 1. massacre 2. enslavement

Fifth revision

Just wars are limited wars (conditional surrender, aims must be constant) can't destroy the enemy state [LTC Lehman] no unconditional surrender because it would violate a state's rights

War Convention Purpose

establish the duties of belligerent states, of army commanders, and of individual societies with reference to the conduct of hostilites

Why does utilitarianism lack creative power?

ends justify the means by a utility calculation, which boils down into realism and ultimately relativism

Ex: French Free Forces use mercenaries (who will rape and pillage) to win their battles

Sidgwick

1. Military necessity - harm which completes the mission

2. Proportionality - use as little harm to achieve the mission

Situationally dependent, may fall into relativism since ends are justifying the means

Bedrock of the war convention

a legitimate act of war is one that does not violate the rights of the people against whom it is directed

War Convention Principles

1. Once war has begun, soldiers are subject to attack at any time (unless they are wounded or captured)

2. Noncombatants cannot be attacked at any time

Underlying principle: discrimination

What is a soldier?

1. Trained to fight

2. Provided with weapons

3. Required to fight of command

This makes a dangerous man

Innocent people

they have done nothing and are doing nothing that entails the loss of their rights

Double Effect (Classical, Aquinas)

1. The act is good in itself or at least indifferent, which means, for our purposes, that it is a legitimate act of war

2. The direct effect is morally acceptable- the destruction of military supplies, for example, or the killing of enemy soldiers

3. The intention of the actor is good, that is, he aims only at the acceptable effect; the evil is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends

4. The good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for allowing the evil effect; it must be justifiable under Sidgwick's proportionality rule

Walzer's Revision on Double Effect (Double Intention)

The intention of the actor is good, that is, he aims narrowly at the acceptable effect; the evil effect is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends, and, aware of the evil involved, he seeks to minimize it, accepting the costs to himself

Supreme Emergency (Jus in bello)

A condition which justifies killing civilians

Criteria: both MUST be met

1. Imminence of danger - immediate and unavoidable

2. Nature of the threat - destruction of the common life/political community

Supreme Emergency Example

"back against the wall" scenario, however it doesn't last, once the position is bettered, there is no supreme emergency

How is supreme emergency justified?

These, then, are the limits of the realm of necessity. Utilitarian calculation can force us to violate the rules of war only when we are face-to-face not merely it defeat but with a defeat likely to bring disaster to a political community

Supreme Emergency Formula

British formula:

If we don't do x (bomb cities) they will do y (win the war, establish tyrannical rule, slaughter their opponents)

American formula:

If we don't do x, we will do y

*there are other options, thus America was not in a supreme emergency

What is in each domain of war?

Jus ad bellum - legalist paradigm with revisions

Jus in bello - war convention

Just Post Bellum

Justice after war/Just peace

Minimalist Argument

Post Bellum answered by ad bellum (justice of a war)

1. vindication of the two rights (territorial and political)

Grounded by Walzer

Minimalist Problems

1. Status quo -> return to the previous state (doesn't prevent future wars)

2. Justice for the violated state

3. What if the aggressor wins?

Maximalist

Key move: distinction between post and ad bellum

Not a Walzerian view

Obligations of a victor:

1. hold war crime trials

2. reinstate governance

3. reconstruct the destroyed state

4. prevent future war

Maximalist problems

1. Over/underdoing obligations = violation of rights by ignoring self-determination, territorial by future wars prevention i.e borders

2. Assumes a world consensus (cultural relativism)

3. Seeds of war are everywhere (economics, ethnic, government)

Jus ad bellum

Justice of a war (going to war) = the legalist paradigm

Jus in bello

Justice in war (war convention)

Self-help test

Evidence must be provided that a community actually exists whose members are committed to independence and ready and able to determine the conditions of their own existence

If they are not (I.e. South Vietnam) then intervention is a just reason for a state to support this war

Preemption

Justified, because a threat is present, and without the first strike the right of the state would be broken

Prevention

Not justified, because it assumes that a state could be a threat in the future, and does not focus on the present moment

Moral equality of soldiers

soldiers on each side are morally equal as long as they fight in accordance with the war convention

Necessity

using the minimal amount of military force to win a moral just war

Crusade definition

A war fight for religion/ideology, wants mass conversion, which violates a people's right to self determination

How should we kill?

With necessity and proportionality

Objection to historical relativism

Over time the warriors' code has not change from Agincourt to Rommel; discerning that there is a military code which remains constant throughout history

Why is war tyranny

Soldiers can't choose to fight a war, they have duty to their nation

Revisionism

attempts to properly model just war theory for modern day; we don't fight states, rather organizations, i.e. Al-Qaeda

Revisionist main view

Reject the distinction between jus in bello and jus ad bellum, meaning that the justice of going to war is tied in with the justice in war

Traditional Just War

symmetric relationship, Walzer's moral equality of soldier's theory

Revisionist Just War

asymmetrical relationship, just > unjust, where the just still retain their right to life and unjust lose it