Difference between revisions of "Just War" - New World Encyclopedia

Revision as of 02:48, 25 September 2006

Template:Cleanup-date

Just war refers to the concept of warfare as being justified, typically in accordance with a particular situation, or scenario, and expanded or supported by reference to doctrine, politics, tradition, or historical commentary. The Just War Tradition is not a philosophical "method" for determining whether a war can be justified. Like every tradition, the just war tradition includes a variety of thinkers who advocate different ways of employing shared concepts (just cause, good intentions, proportionality, discrimination, etc.) for purposes of ethical reflection and judgment about the use of arms. The Just War tradition is first of all a set of criteria that act as an aid to determining whether or not resorting to arms is the morally correct step. The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero.

Theory

"Just War theory" refers to modern political doctrines which promote the view that war is "just" (ie. justice), given satisfactory conditions. As "conditions" tend to be variable, open to interpretation, and otherwise subject to political obfuscation, the concept of Just War itself, even apart from any specific formulated doctrines, is controversial.

While proponents claim such views have a long tradition, critics claim the application of "Just war" is only relativistic, and directly contradicts more universal philosophical traditions such as the Ethic of reciprocity.

Just War theorists

Cicero (106 B.C.E.-43 B.C.E.)
Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Stanislaw of Skarbimierz (1360-1431)
Francisco de Vitoria (1492-1546)
Francisco Suarez (1548-1617)
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)
Baron von Pufendorf (1632-1694)
Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767)
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)
H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962)
Paul Tillich (1886-1965)
Paul Ramsey (1913-1988)
Michael Walzer (1935-)
Timothy P. Jackson (1954-)
Brian Orend (1970-)

Alternative Theories

There have been several theories that have challenged Just War theory. Also, some have claimed the Just War theory is impractical in real-war situations.

Militarism - Militarism is the belief that war is not inherently bad, but rather can be a beneficial aspect of society.
Realism - Proponents of realism believe that moral concepts should never prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behaviour. Instead, a state should place an emphasis on state security and self-interest. One form of realism - descriptive realism - proposes that states cannot act morally, while another form - prescriptive realism - argues that the motivating factor for a state is self-interest.
Just Wars that violate Just Wars principles, effectively constitutes a branch of realism. Many ideologies agree with the tradition that war should be fought only if done for a just cause but reject most if not all of the other criteria of the tradition. The Marxist tradition can be seen as part of this category. For Marxists the only criteria is whether a war is "progressive" (by the Marxist historical-progression definition) and it is irrelevant how costly the war may be. Husayn bin Ali is celebrated for his pursuit of his "just" claim to the caliphate despite the fact his rebellion was doomed to failure. However Husayn's rebellion was an unjust war by the criteria of the Just War tradition because it violated the principle that there must be a reasonable chance of success.
Revolution and Civil War - Just War Theory states that a just war must have just authority, normally interpreted as a legitimate government. This leaves little room for revolutionary war or civil war, in which an illegitimate entity may declare war for reasons that fit the remaining criteria of Just War Theory. This is less of a problem if the "just authority" is widely interpreted as "the will of the people" or similar. Certain types of civil war are specifically mentioned in Article 1. Paragraph 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as covered by the international provisions of the Geneva Conventions namely those ... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes ..., this gives those fighting against such states the same status under international law and "just authority" as a legitimate government.
Absolutism - Absolutism holds that there are various ethical rules that are, as the name implies, absolute. Breaking such moral rules is never legitimate and therefore is always unjustifiable. The philosopher Thomas Nagel is a well known supporter of this view, having defended it in his essay War and Massacre.
Pacifism - Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unjust. Pacifists extend humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants, especially conscripts.[1]

Practice

The Just War tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello). [2] In more recent years, a third category - Jus post bellum - has been added, which governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the trying of war criminals.

Beginning a Just War: Jus ad bellum

In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum):

Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave public evil (e.g., a massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations) or in defense;

St Augustine categorized just cause into three elements that justified warfare: defending against an external attack, recapturing things taken, and punishing people who have done wrong.

Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Right Intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose- correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[3]
Last Resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Note that these are only the most typical conditions cited by just war theorists; some (such as Brian Orend) omit Comparative Justice, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Conducting a Just War: Jus in bello

Once war has begun, Just War theory also directs how combatants are to act:
(Jus in bello)

Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb).
Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated.
Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission.
Torture, of combatants or non-combatants, is forbidden.
Prisoners of war must be treated respectfully.

Ending A War: Jus Post Bellum

In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, war crimes trials, and war reparations. Orend, for instance, proposes the following principles:

Just cause for termination - A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation.
Right intention - A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
Public declaration and authority - The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.
Discrimination - The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.
Proportionality - Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.

Just War Theory and Real-War Situations

Military personnel, upon coming across enemy injured soldiers should in theory disarm combatants, check medical status and call for medical assistance. However, there are situations when taking such action would place the personnel in considerable danger. Tactics described by euphemisms such as "assurance shots" or "double taps" are when military personnel fire at enemy injured soldiers in order to prevent any actions that may jeopardize their security violate the rules of war. In practice however such conduct, although technically illegal, has not been the subject of international legal proceedings. For example the criteria for the International Criminal Court require the crimes committed to be sufficiently serious to be of concern to the international community.

In modern warfare, proportionality as prescribed in jus in bello can be more difficult to achieve, due to the tactic of placing military targets within civilian areas. The criterion for proportionality uses the concept of double effect that is, one may undertake military operations aimed at legitimate objectives or targets, despite the operation having foreseeable negative consequences, such as civilian casualties. Essentially, the negative consequences must be proportionate to the military gain. Theorists within the Just War tradition would accept that there is a threshold beyond which the negative consequences outweigh any other considerations, even the danger of defeat.

Proponents of realism would suggest that in a Total War it can be difficult to distinguish between a combatant and a civilian. It takes one pilot to fly a fighter jet, but it takes thousands of civilian man hours to produce it and keep it operational. This argument is used to assert the principle of discrimination does not apply and significant enemy non-combatant casualties should be tolerated. This argument has been widely used to justify the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[4]

The Just War Tradition and the Iraq War

In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq the question as to whether that war was a just war was posed. Many on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in terms of the Just War. They came to quite different conclusions because they put different interpretations on how the just war criteria should be applied. Supporters of the war tended to accept the US position that the enforcement of UN resolutions was sufficient authority or even, as in the case of the Land Letter, that the US president as a sovereign ruler could count as legitimate authority. Opponents of the war tended to interpret legitimate authority as requiring a specific Security Council resolution.[5][6] Nelson Mandela indicated this view, suggesting the US position was effectively "if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries." [7]

Additional Reading

Charles, J. Daryl. Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition. InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Heindel, Max, The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers - Volume II (The Philosophy of War, World War I reference, ed. 1918), ISBN 0-911274-90-1 (Describing a philosophy of war and just war concepts from a Rosicrucian point of view)
Small, Brad. Thomas Aquinas "The Just War Theory." The Lincoln-Douglas Great Philosopher Library Series.
The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention U.S. Institute of Peace
Resources on Just War Theory
"Whether it is always sinful to wage war?", from the Summa Theologiae
"JustWarTheory.com", a free and non-profit internet teaching and research guide to Just War theory.
The Just War doctrine and its application in current international law
Humanitarian Intervention and Just War
Just War Theory - an overview
Just War, As It Was and Is: J T Johnson
Grotius and Contingent Pacifism

Against:

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Just_War ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

History of "Just War"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 {{Cleanup-date|June 2006}}
-'''Just war''' refers to the concept of [[warfare]] as being justified, typically in accordance with a particular situation, or scenario, and expanded or supported by reference to doctrine, politics, tradition, or historical commentary. '''The Just War Tradition''' - is not a philosophical "method" for determining whether a war can be justified. Like every tradition, the just war tradition includes a great variety of thinkers who advocate different ways of employing shared concepts (just cause, good intentions, proportionality, discrimination, etc.) for purposes of ethical reflection and judgment about the use of arms. The Just War tradition is first of all a set of criteria that act as an aid to determining whether or not resorting to arms is the morally correct step. The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to [[Cicero]].
+'''Just war''' refers to the concept of [[warfare]] as being justified, typically in accordance with a particular situation, or scenario, and expanded or supported by reference to doctrine, politics, tradition, or historical commentary. '''The Just War Tradition''' is not a philosophical "method" for determining whether a war can be justified. Like every tradition, the just war tradition includes a variety of thinkers who advocate different ways of employing shared concepts (just cause, good intentions, proportionality, discrimination, etc.) for purposes of ethical reflection and judgment about the use of arms. The Just War tradition is first of all a set of criteria that act as an aid to determining whether or not resorting to arms is the morally correct step. The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to [[Cicero]].
 == Theory ==
 "Just War theory" refers to modern political doctrines which promote the view that ''[[war]] is "just"'' (ie. [[justice]]), given satisfactory conditions. As "conditions" tend to be variable, open to interpretation, and otherwise subject to political obfuscation, the concept of Just War itself, even apart from any specific formulated doctrines, is controversial.
-While proponents claim such views have a long "tradition," critics claim the application of "Just war" is only [[relativism|relativistic]], and directly contradicts more [[universalism|universal]] philosophical traditions such as the [[Ethic of reciprocity]].
+While proponents claim such views have a long tradition, critics claim the application of "Just war" is only [[relativism|relativistic]], and directly contradicts more [[universalism|universal]] philosophical traditions such as the [[Ethic of reciprocity]].
 ===Just War theorists===
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 *'''[[Militarism|Militarism]]''' - Militarism is the belief that war is not inherently bad, but rather can be a beneficial aspect of society.
-*'''[[Realism]]''' - The core proposition of realism is a scepticism as to whether moral concepts such as justice can be applied to the conduct of international affairs. Proponents of realism believe that moral concepts should never prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behaviour. Instead, a state should place an emphasis on state security and self-interest. One form of realism - descriptive realism - proposes that states cannot act morally, while another form - prescriptive realism - argues that the motivating factor for a state is self-interest.
+*'''[[Realism]]''' -  Proponents of realism believe that moral concepts should never prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behaviour. Instead, a state should place an emphasis on state security and self-interest. One form of realism - descriptive realism - proposes that states cannot act morally, while another form - prescriptive realism - argues that the motivating factor for a state is self-interest.
 *'''Just Wars''' that violate Just Wars principles, effectively constitutes a branch of [[realism]].  Many ideologies agree with the tradition that war should be fought only if done for a just cause but reject most if not all of the other criteria of the tradition.  The Marxist tradition can be seen as part of this category.  For [[Marxism|Marxists]] the only criteria is whether a war is "progressive" (by the Marxist historical-progression definition) and it is irrelevant how costly the war may be.  [[Husayn bin Ali]] is celebrated for his pursuit of his "just" claim to the caliphate despite the fact his rebellion was doomed to failure.  However Husayn's rebellion was an unjust war by the criteria of the Just War tradition because it violated the principle that there must be a reasonable chance of success.
-*'''[[Revolution]]''' and '''[[civil war|Civil War]]''' - Just War Theory states that a just war must have just  authority.  To the extent that this is interpreted as a legitimate government this leaves little room for [[revolutionary war]] or civil war, in which an illegitimate entity may declare war for reasons that fit the remaining criteria of Just War Theory.  This is less of a problem if the "just  authority" is widely interpreted as "the will of the people" or similar. Certain types of civil war are specifically mentioned in Article 1. Paragraph 4 of the 1977 Additional [[Protocol I]] to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as covered by the international provisions of the Geneva Conventions namely those ''... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes ...'', this gives those fighting against such states the same status under international law and "just  authority" as a legitimate government.
+*'''[[Revolution]]''' and '''[[civil war|Civil War]]''' - Just War Theory states that a just war must have just authority, normally interpreted as a legitimate government. This leaves little room for [[revolutionary war]] or civil war, in which an illegitimate entity may declare war for reasons that fit the remaining criteria of Just War Theory.  This is less of a problem if the "just  authority" is widely interpreted as "the will of the people" or similar. Certain types of civil war are specifically mentioned in Article 1. Paragraph 4 of the 1977 Additional [[Protocol I]] to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as covered by the international provisions of the Geneva Conventions namely those ''... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes ...'', this gives those fighting against such states the same status under international law and "just  authority" as a legitimate government.
 *'''[[Moral absolutism|Absolutism]]''' - Absolutism holds that there are various ethical rules that are, as the name implies, absolute.  Breaking such moral rules is never legitimate and therefore is always unjustifiable.  The philosopher [[Thomas Nagel]] is a well known supporter of this view, having defended it in his essay War and Massacre.
 *'''[[Pacifism]]''' - Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unjust. Pacifists extend humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants, especially conscripts.[http://www.themanifesto.info/manifesto.htm]
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 *'''Just Cause:''' Force may be used only to correct a grave public evil (e.g., a massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations) or in defense;
-St Augustine categorised just cause into three elements that justified warfare
+St Augustine categorized just cause into three elements that justified warfare: defending against an external attack, recapturing things taken, and punishing people who have done wrong.
-*defending against an external attack
-*recapturing things taken
-*punishing people who have done wrong
-A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said:
-''"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"''
 *'''Comparative Justice:''' While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
 *'''Legitimate Authority:''' Only duly constituted public [[authorities]] may use deadly force or wage war;
@@ Line 64: / Line 59: @@
 === Conducting a Just War: ''Jus in bello'' ===
 Once war has begun, Just War theory also directs how [[combatant]]s are to act:<br/>(''Jus in bello'')
-*Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of '''discrimination'''. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards [[civilian|civilians]] caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids [[weapons of mass destruction]] of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an [[atomic bomb]]).
+*Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of '''discrimination'''. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards [[civilian|civilians]]. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids [[weapons of mass destruction]] of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an [[atomic bomb]]).
 *Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of '''proportionality'''. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated.
 *Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of '''minimum force'''.  This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.  It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission.
@@ Line 85: / Line 81: @@
 In modern warfare, proportionality as prescribed in ''jus in bello'' can be more difficult to achieve, due to the tactic of placing military targets within civilian areas. The criterion for proportionality uses the concept of ''double effect''  that is, one may undertake military operations aimed at legitimate objectives or targets, despite the operation having foreseeable negative consequences, such as civilian casualties. Essentially, the negative consequences must be proportionate to the military gain.  Theorists within the Just War tradition would accept that there is a threshold beyond which the negative consequences outweigh any other considerations, even the danger of defeat.
-Proponents of [[realism]] would suggest that in a [[Total War]] it can be difficult to distinguish between a combatant and a civilian. It takes one pilot to fly a fighter jet, but it takes thousands of civilian man hours to produce it and keep it operational. In the words of a British [[World War II]] popular song "''And it's the girl that makes the thing that holds the oil / that oils the ring that works the thing-ummy-bob / that's going to win the war.''"[http://www.monologues.co.uk/Comic_Songs/Thing_Ummy_Bob.htm] This argument is used to assert the principle of discrimination does not apply and significant enemy non-combatant casualties should be tolerated. This argument has been widely used to justify the [[atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]].[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp25.htm]
+Proponents of [[realism]] would suggest that in a [[Total War]] it can be difficult to distinguish between a combatant and a civilian. It takes one pilot to fly a fighter jet, but it takes thousands of civilian man hours to produce it and keep it operational. This argument is used to assert the principle of discrimination does not apply and significant enemy non-combatant casualties should be tolerated. This argument has been widely used to justify the [[atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]].[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp25.htm]
 ===The Just War Tradition and the Iraq War===
+In the run up to the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] the question as to whether that war was a just war was posed. Many on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in terms of the Just War.  They came to quite different conclusions because they put different interpretations on how the just war criteria should be applied.  Supporters of the war tended to accept the US position that the enforcement of UN resolutions was sufficient authority or even, as in the case of the [[Land Letter]], that the US president as a sovereign ruler could count as legitimate authority. Opponents of the war tended to interpret legitimate authority as requiring a specific Security Council resolution.[http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=218][http://www.us-organization.org/position/spjrw.html]  [[Nelson Mandela]] indicated this view, suggesting the US position was effectively "if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries." [http://www.ilaam.net/Opinions/USAThreat.html]
-In the run up to the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] the question as to whether that war was a just war was posed. Many of those on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in terms of the Just War.  They came to quite different conclusions because they put different interpretations on how the just war criteria should be applied.  Supporters of the war tended to accept the US position that the enforcement of UN resolutions was sufficient authority or even, as in the case of the [[Land Letter]], that the US president as a sovereign ruler could count as legitimate authority. Opponents of the war tended to interpret legitimate authority as requiring a specific Security Council resolution.[http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=218][http://www.us-organization.org/position/spjrw.html]  [[Nelson Mandela]] indicated this view, suggesting the US position was effectively "if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries." [http://www.ilaam.net/Opinions/USAThreat.html]
 ==Additional Reading==