Just War

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.) - grew up in atmosphere of Civil War, and wrote on the justice of beginning a war
• Augustine of Hippo (354-430) - Advocated use of force on the Donatists: "Why ... should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction?"
• Stanislaw of Skarbimierz (1360-1431) - spoke of just war as a human rights issue
• Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) - argued that all nations are bound by the principles of natural law in wars
• Baron von Pufendorf (1632-1694) - disputed Hobbes' belief that the natural state of man was war, arguing it should be entered infrequently
• Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767) - focused on the international diplomacy side of just war
• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) - wrote on the acceptable conditions for ending a war. Notably believed in constitutional republics
• Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) - key contributor to Christian Realism, which is a critique of pacifism. Advocated use of force during World War II
• Michael Walzer (1935-) wrote on the importance of ethics in wartime, rejects pacifism
• Brian Orend (1970-) - focuses mainly on the period following wars and the treatment of losers

Though each of these thinkers worked in distinctive areas of Just War Theory, all believed that war could be just given the right conditions. None could be considered pacifists.

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. these alternative theories include militarism, realism, absolutism, and pacifism. Militarism is the belief that war is not inherently bad, but rather can be a beneficial aspect of society. 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. 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 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):

There must be 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. War must seek 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. Only duly constituted public authorities, known as Legitimate Authority may use deadly force or wage war. Force may be used only in a truly just cause, known as Right Intention, and solely for that purpose- correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. There must be a high 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 must hold. The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[3] Finally, force may be used only as a Last Resort, 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). Combatants should adhere to the idea 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. Combatants should seek to use 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 in just war and 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:

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. 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. The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority. 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. 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]

The Just War Tradition and Rwanda

While the United States has been criticized harshly for its war in Iraq, the world community responded equally harshly when the United States, France and others in the United Nations failed to act during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Around 1 million ethnic Tutsis are thought to have been killed. The United Nations established the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, but did not give its soldiers authority to enter into conflict except for in self-defense. The UN also ignored reports of Hutu militias gathering weapons. Failure to act led to the veto of a second five year term as Secretary General of the UN for Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Just war theorists would argue that in such a clear case of genocide, it is the responsibility of powerful nations to intervene.

The Just War Tradition and Kosovo

While the United States and the UN failed to act in Rwanda, NATO, led by the United States, took decisive action against culling of people in Kosovo under the rule of the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic's actions were the reaction to some ethnic Albanians guerrilla attacks on Serbian police. The Serbian reaction eventually turned into a slaughter of ethnic Albanians. The United States intervened and drove Milosevic from power. An interesting issue exists with this conflict. Some believed the only reason the president Bill Clinton intervened was to distract from political scandal in the United States. This brings about issues of the justness of a war if the ends are valid, but the reasons not.

The Just War Tradition in History

Just War Theory can also be applied to historical wars. World War II serves as a good example, especially because many writers on the subject of Just War lived through this war. Reinhold Niebuhr is one such example. He advocated the Allies' use of force against the Axis in World War II, rejecting pacifism such as the policy of appeasement that led to the Nazi occupation of what was then Czechoslovakia. Possible debate could exist over whether or not Hitler's unjustified blitzkrieg against Czechoslovakia and Poland justified England and France declaring war on Germany. A less debatable motivation for entering the war is knowledge of the Holocaust. World War II also provides a good example of Jus Post Bellum as members of the Axis were made to pay reparations to those countries affected by the war.

Just War Today

The union of the nations of the world in global bodies such as the United Nations, the WTO, NATO, and other such powers will give more prominence to the issue of just wars as the global community debates intervention in more and more situations. The criticism of the United States unilateral actions in Iraq show that just war is a global, rather than domestic issue and will be decided on a very public stage in the future.

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
• Introduction: "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense
• A New Way
• A Critique of the Just War Theory
• Noam Chomsky addresses cadets at West Point on Just War Theory (.ram file)

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.