Justifying War and Ethics of Weapons

Justifying War

  • Normative questions:
    • Whether war can be justified.
    • What actions are permissible during war.
  • Empirical question: "What causes war?"
  • Normative question: "When, if ever, is it justified to wage war?"
  • The answer tells when we "ought" and "ought not" to go to war.

Three Views on the Morality of War

  • Pacifism
  • Realism
  • The "Just War" Tradition

Pacifism

  • Going to war is never justified (Absolute Pacifism).
  • Absolute pacifism is deontological:
    • An action is not judged by its consequences.
    • Refraining from killing is an absolute moral duty, whatever the consequences.
  • Selective pacifism:
    • Opposed to wars involving weapons of mass destruction but not to all wars in all circumstances.
  • Often based on religious belief (e.g., Quakers, who oppose all forms of violence but support non-violent resistance).
  • Not necessarily based on religion; a humanist or atheist could adopt a pacifist position based on the absolute sanctity of human life.
  • Absolute pacifists must oppose:
    • Killing in war.
    • Suicide.
    • Euthanasia.
    • Capital punishment.
  • Pacifists have often been courageous:
    • Conscientious objectors endure public ridicule, abuse, and imprisonment.
    • Some serve in the armed forces during war (e.g., as ambulance drivers); others refuse because it supports the war effort.
  • Pacifists are sometimes considered “free riders”:
    • Relying on others to do the "dirty work" (of killing) while remaining "morally pure".

Objections to Pacifism

  • Faced with an opponent of considerable malevolence (e.g., Nazi Germany), is it right to refuse armed resistance?
    • Knowing the opponent will show no respect for your beliefs or your life (consequentialist argument).
    • Non-violent opposition is unlikely to be successful against such an adversary.
  • What if armed force would save not only your life and liberty but also that of others?
  • Is it correct to remain morally aloof, with "clean hands" at whatever cost?
  • Is the "moral purity" of the pacifist the primary consideration?

Realism

  • War needs no special justification as long as it serves the interests of the state.
  • Realists do have moral values:
    • They object to unnecessary wars and unnecessary cruelties in war.
  • Realists do not favor "crusades" to convert others to a particular religion, political ideology, or system of government.
    • They are generally skeptical of “high-minded" motives for foreign intervention.
  • War itself needs no further justification than that it is in the best interests of the state.
  • The realist view:
    • The best way to guarantee peace in international relations is if each state looks after its own national interests and there is a stable "balance of power".

Liberals and War

  • Liberals have been most ready to go to war in the last few decades.
  • In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US was supposed to be "planting the seeds of liberal democracy" and promoting gender equality.
  • In Syria, the situation is murky:
    • The West supports the overthrow of Assad (in the name of freedom and democracy) while siding with Islamic extremists (various offshoots of Al Qaeda).
    • These extremists are the military opposition to Assad on the ground.

Just War Theory

  • Just war theory is divided into two parts:
    • Jus ad Bellum (i.e., the justice of war).
    • Jus in Bello (i.e., justice in war).

Jus ad Bellum (Justice of War)

  • Principles of jus ad bellum:
    • War should be a last resort (peaceful avenues should be exhausted).
    • Wars can only be waged by a legitimate authority (usually interpreted as meaning a sovereign state).
    • War must have a just cause (it can only be justified to put right a wrong).
    • Wars must have the right intention (i.e., if a just cause exists, it is right to try to rectify this, but not to seek revenge).
    • There must be a reasonable prospect of success.
    • The recourse to war must be a measured and proportionate response.

Jus in Bello (Justice in War)

  • Principles of jus in bello:
    • Non-combatant immunity (civilians should not be targeted; note here the doctrine of double effect).
    • Proportionality (excessive force - beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective - should not be used).
    • Humanity (force should not be used against captured or wounded enemy personnel).
  • In every war that has ever been fought these principles have been broken.
  • Nevertheless they do affirm an important principle: that in war not everything is permissible.
  • On this basis it is impossible to identify some actions as war crimes.
  • Typically, those brought to justice typically come from less developed and less powerful countries; whereas war crimes committed by powerful (and in particular, victorious) states, largely go unpunished.

Walzer's Argument

  • The philosopher Michael Walzer argues that the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are logically distinct.
  • It is possible to wage a just war unjustly (such as RAF area bombing – e.g. of Hamburg and Dresden - in WWII).
  • An unjust war can be waged justly (e.g., Rommel in North Africa refused Hitler's order to execute all enemy soldiers behind German lines).
  • He also argues that the two sets of principles apply to different people:
    • Jus ad bellum to statesmen.
    • Jus in bello to statesmen and soldiers.

Problems with Just War Theory

  • Last resort:
    • Suppose declining to go to war now (because not every peaceful avenue has been exhausted) gives your adversary time to gain strength and makes a later war more costly and bloody?
    • Indeed, might there not, in some cases, be an argument for a pre-emptive attack, if there is evidence that a rival state is likely to become belligerent in future (and would be in stronger position by then)?
    • In any case, how do we know when every peaceful avenue has been exhausted (there can always be another conference, or another summit)
    • This objection, however, is not decisive since the principle can be reformulated so that "every reasonable attempt to find a peaceful solution has been made".
  • Legitimate authority?
    • A legitimate authority is generally taken to mean a government or state.
    • But what of wars of national liberation wages by irregular forces?
    • Many such wars - leading to independence – enjoy retrospective legitimacy of the (newly independent) state.
    • For example, Dublin is littered with statues of insurgents shot or hanged by the British, and, on her state visit to Ireland in 2011 the UK Queen laid a wreath to many of them in Dublin's Garden of Remembrance.
    • The Commonwealth consists of many former British colonies (but not Ireland) which became independent only after armed conflict: Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus, Aden, and so on.
  • During the War of Independence (1775-1783), George Washington is said to have remarked, while his colleagues were quarrelling: "Gentlemen, we must all hang together, For, if we do not, most assuredly we will all hang separately".
  • A reasonable prospect of success…
    • This might seem obvious. What is the point of engaging in a conflict one cannot win?
    • But consider the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (1944)
    • The insurgents – the Jewish resistance – could not win (although they could temporarily halt deportations to the death camps).
    • Who would say that their hopeless struggle against overwhelming odds (without a "reasonable prospect of success") was other than incredibly heroic and wholly admirable?
  • Some wars are just…
    • The purpose of just war theory was to provide a justification for war (against pacifism) while also providing a set of criteria by which it could be judged that some wars are just and others are not.
    • But, if the only just war is one observing all these principles, has there ever been a just war in history?
    • Only by a flexible interpretation of jus ad bellum can war ever be justified.

The Doctrine of Double Effect

  • Imagine a military installation is bombed from the air.
    • The target is military (a legitimate target).
    • But the bombing also results in civilian casualties.
    • These civilian casualties were not intended but they were foreseen.
    • Those who carried out the bombing know that bombing is not 100% accurate (and in any case there will be civilian personnel working in a military base).
  • Even although it was foreseen that the bombing would result in civilian casualties, it is morally permissible.
    • This is because civilians were not the intended target, and war cannot be waged with the guarantee that civilian casualties will be zero.
    • As Michael Waltzer has argued, if the prohibition on killing civilians is absolute then every war is unjust; and this leads to pacifism.
    • Since he believes war is sometimes justified – he is in the "just war" tradition he resists this conclusion.
  • There are, of course, additional provisos.
    • The number of civilian casualties must not be excessive or disproportionate.
    • All reasonable efforts must have been taken to avoid civilian casualties (even if that increases risk to air crew e.g. by flying at lower altitudes).
    • Every effort must be made to hit the intended target, which must be a legitimate military target (not necessarily a military installation, a shipyard or docks, or munitions factory, are legitimate targets).
  • It needs to be pointed out that the doctrine of double effect provides no justification for RAF bombing of Germany in WWII or US bombing of Japan (in both cases the intention was to kill civilians), or US bombing of North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
  • The sheer number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan also call into question whether it can be used to justify US bombing.
  • In many cases, the doctrine of double effect is simply used to explain away civilian deaths.

The 9/11 Wars and Just War Theory

  • The USA did have a jus bellum for the war in Afghanistan.
    • The US had been attacked by Al Qaeda who were harboured in Afghanistan.
    • There is some controversy as to whether the Taliban could have been persuaded to hand over Al Qaeda (there were negotiations).
    • But, in the aftermath of 9/11, US public opinion required a show of strength, and this was a crucial factor.
  • However:
    • The US war aims in Afghanistan quickly mutated.
    • The aim swiftly became to drive the Taliban from power.
    • George W Bush (in Sep. 2001) described the "war on terror" as a "crusade".
    • Later Bush said the US had an interest in a "democratic Afghanistan" as an alternative to "extremism".
    • Laura Bush (the First Lady) claimed (in Nov. 2001) that the "fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women".
    • These aims are not consistent either with just war theory or international law.
  • In Iraq the US did not have a jus bellum.
    • Iraq bore no responsibility for the 9/11 attack.
    • The claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which posed a threat to the west was disputed by UN weapons inspectors and proved, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, to have been unfounded.
    • The real objective - regime change - was, again, inconsistent with just war theory and with international law.
  • In 2011 a NATO-coalition intervened in Libya.
    • Officially, this was a “humanitarian intervention" to prevent a genocide in Benghazi.
  • However, the NATO forces quickly exceeded their remit, and engineered regime change by supporting one side in a civil war.
  • As in Libya – but unlike Iraq and Afghanistan - the Us has not put any "boots on the ground".
    • But it supports one side in a civil war in which, once again, the aim is regime change.
    • Further, Syria has not attacked the US, and the Assad regime is not associated with Al Qaeda.

Jus in Bello and the 9/11 Wars

  • The 9/11 wars have caused huge numbers of civilian casualties.
    • The Costs of War Project estimate over 800,000 have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, and Yemen.
    • Of these around 387,000 have been civilians (around 48%).
    • The US have used cluster bombs and drones.
    • The US claims it takes care to avoid civilian casualties, but this is disputed, and the numbers suggest otherwise.
  • In addition the US use of "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation" (a euphemism for torture) are clearly in breach of just war principles.
  • The abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were claimed to be isolated incidents; but this was disputed by rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Jus in Bello: A Reasonable Prospect of Success

  • The 9/11 wars have not achieved their objective.
  • They have not weakened terrorism.
  • They have produced ethnic strife, weak (or failing) government, and often simple chaos: in Iraq and Libya.
  • In Afghanistan the Taliban are back in control after a 20-year war which seems to have achieved nothing.
  • In Syria outside intervention merely prolongs the war and human suffering.

Jus Post Bellum

  • Some IR theorists have argued there should be another strand to just war theory: jus post bellum (or justice after the war).
  • The idea is that, after the conflict is over, there is a responsibility to ensure order and stability, and safeguards for the population.
  • In these respects, the 9/11 wars have failed spectacularly.

Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction

  • Nuclear Missiles
  • Chemical/Biological weapons
  • Drone Swarms
  • The ethical problem is very simple:
    • WMDs kill on a massive scale and kill civilians.
    • They therefore violate several principles of jus in bello including non-combatant immunity and proportionality.
  • So far nuclear weapons have only been used once, in WWII, by the USA against Japan.
    • Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (nearly a quarter of a million people were killed).
    • The rationale was to force a Japanese surrender, thereby reducing the number of casualties US soldiers would take if the war was fought by purely conventional means.
    • There is a controversy regarding whether the bombings (or any use of such weapons) constitute war crimes.
  • Of course, conventional weapons can also cause huge numbers of civilian casualties
    • Examples include the area bombing of Germany by the RAF (e.g. the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden) and the US bombing of Tokyo (which killed 100,000).
    • In fact, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was first used to describe the incendiary bombs used in these bombings.
    • It is important to recognise that these bombings were intended to kill civilians in large numbers.
    • But this doesn't really meet the objection - area bombing using incendiary bombs also violates the principles of non-combatant immunity and proportionality and so, arguably, is also wrong.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

  • It could be argued that there is a difference between possessing nuclear weapons and using nuclear weapons.
  • During the Cold War it was argued that nuclear weapons acted as a deterrence.
    • The USA and the USSR could not rationally wage nuclear war against each other because that would lead to their mutually assured destruction (MAD), and since each knew this, neither would risk it.
    • So, possessing nuclear weapons prevented war (or at any rate direct all-out war between nuclear-armed states).
    • Of course, the adversary had to believe that you would use nuclear weapons, otherwise they could not function as a deterrent.

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

  • There are now 9 countries with nuclear weapons: they include North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India.
  • In these circumstances it is impossible for the USA, Russia, China, the UK and France to give up nuclear weapons.
  • Some countries that had nuclear weapons no longer have them, including South Africa and some former Soviet-Republics (including Ukraine).

Biological Weapons

  • These are illegal in international law under the Biological Weapons Convention (1972).
  • Their use in armed conflict is a war crime.
  • So far 183 states have ratified the Treaty (Israel has not ratified the Convention).
  • However it is very difficult to verify is a state is not secretly developing or stockpiling weapons of this kind.
  • And there is the danger that weapons of this kind – e.g. anthrax - could be used by a terrorist group.

Drones and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

  • In large swarms they can be weapons of mass destruction….(discussed last week)
    Nuclear weapons are therefore not the only threat to human survival….