Just War lecture notes 12/2/25
Just War Theory Overview
War and Its Justification
Combatants vs. Non-Combatants
Civilians are often casualties of war, leading to the argument that wars are not justified due to non-combatant deaths and destruction of civilian infrastructure.
There is a historical parallel with pacifism; however, modern warfare employs more precise weapons, yet still risks civilian lives.
Emergence of Cyber Warfare
The advent of the cyber domain introduces a new type of warfare.
Potential for targeted strikes against military infrastructure through cyber means, sparking discussions about the acceptability of such warfare within contingent pacifism.
Despite the targeting of military systems, cyber warfare can still adversely affect civilian infrastructure, challenging the position of contingent pacifism.
Realism in International Relations
Definition and Core Beliefs
Realism is an empirical theory aimed at understanding international interactions, positing that countries act primarily out of self-interest.
Predicting a nation's actions involves analyzing its collective self-interest.
John Mearsheimer and Realism
A major proponent of realism, Mearsheimer applies his theory to justify state actions, notably supporting Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Asserts that NATO's actions contributed to Russia's aggression, framing the invasion as a defensive response to Western pressures.
NATO and the Warsaw Pact
NATO formed as a Cold War alliance, where an attack against one member warrants a collective defensive response (Article 5).
The Warsaw Pact was the USSR's military alliance, aiming for mutual defense.
Post-Cold War NATO expansion raised tensions and resulted in geopolitical conflicts, notably with Ukraine.
Ethical Dimensions of War
Collectivist vs. Individualist Approaches
Collectivist Approach
Advocates for different moral standards governing warfare versus individual conflicts.
Claims conduct during war has distinct moral implications based on group actions, allowing for justifiable behavior in the context of military action (e.g., soldiers killing enemy soldiers is permissible).
Just War Criteria: Just war must adhere to certain ethical guidelines, including just cause and proportionality.
Individualism
Holding that the same moral standards apply to individuals and collectives, arguing against justifications for aggression in warfare.
Violence is wrong regardless of whether inflicted by individuals or states, conflating military actions with criminal behavior.
Just War Theory Components
Legitimate Authority
War must be declared by a recognized head of state to maintain legitimacy.
Raises questions about actions by non-state actors like terrorists, complicating just war theory.
Just Cause
Self-defense against aggression constitutes a classic just cause; Ukraine as a case for just war against Russian aggression.
Preemptive vs. Preventive Attacks:
Preemptive attacks: Targeting imminent threats.
Preventive attacks: Aimed at averting future threats, often resulting in more destruction.
Last Resort
War must only be pursued after exhausting all diplomatic alternatives, although this criterion can be misused through unreasonable demands.
Reasonable Chance of Success
Countries should only engage in warfare where there is a reasonable likelihood of achieving objectives and minimizing loss of life.
Proportionality
The level of force used must be proportionate to the aggression sustained and not excessive based on the nature of harm caused.
Right Intention
The declared intention behind a war must reflect genuine aims, necessitating transparency and honesty in leadership actions.
Example: The US invasion of Iraq lacked honesty regarding WMDs and transitioned toward regime change.
Public Declaration
War must be publicly declared to allow civilians to take necessary precautions.
Humanitarian Intervention
Established in 2005 by the UN sought to protect human rights, allowing intervention to prevent humanitarian crises, although controversial.
Just Conduct in War (Jus in Bello)
Rules for Conducting War
Military actions must adhere to principles of proportionality, necessity, and discrimination.
Civilians must not be targeted, reinforcing the importance of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants.
The Moral Equality of Soldiers means both sides can justly target combatants, though individualists argue based on who initiated aggression.
Just Post-War Conditions (Jus Post Bellum)
Evaluation of War Outcomes
Assessing whether the war achieved its intended goals establishes its legitimacy.
Treatment of enemy soldiers and reparations should be fair; vengeful or excessive demands can foster future conflicts.
Example of reparations causing resentment post-World War I led to World War II.
The Marshall Plan as a case study presenting a constructive post-war strategy aimed at rehabilitation rather than punitive damage.
Maximal vs. Minimum Focus
Minimum focuses on how the victors treat the losers (e.g., reparations).
Maximal focuses on the obligations of victors, including fairness, compensation, and rehabilitation of aggressors.
Contemporary Issues
Current debates in just war theory relate to real-world scenarios such as US actions in the Caribbean against drug trafficking, raising questions about the just conduct of military interventions in modern contexts.