@RDanneskjld,
R.Danneskjöld;96940 wrote:
- Is there such a thing as a just war, both in theory and in actuality?
- What conditions would be sufficient to make war morally justified?
- Is absolute pacifism a logically coherent notion?
These are just a few of the questions that surround the issue of Just War. I have recently been doing a significant amount of reading surrounding the issue and am intrigued what others think. Personally I believe that War can be just, when certain conditions are fulfilled. But I am unsure whether I would want to adopt a consequentialist or non-conquestialist approach.
Academically speaking, the topic of just war is actually very simple (and remarkably uniform). At the heart of just war theory are two fundamental points,
jus ad bellum and
jus ad bello.
Jus ad Bellum translates as "justice of war," or more precisely, the arguments for a morally justified precession to war.
Jus ad bello on the other hand encapsulates all the principles of
jus ad bellum, but further contains stipulations on how a war is to be morally fought.
Before saying anything more, my translation of just war theory comes from
Nicholas Fotion. Fotion maintains a very strict and uniform code as far as just war theory is concerned. That being said, it is very simplified, which is both good and bad. Good in the respect that it is easy to understand the fundamentals, bad in the respect that there is a lot to be elaborated upon. Another just war theorist I particularly like is
Richard Falk, who authored "Defining a Just War" after the events of September 11th. However, Falk is more concerned with the dichotomy of symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare (terrorism). Fotion is ideal for basic definitions. Fotions just war theory is roughly as follows;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the justice for war (hereafter called jus ad bellum), there a six (6) primary criteria for a morally justified reason for war (leading up to but not including the act itself).
1.
Conditions that apply for just war must be positive. For example, a negative condition automatically disqualifies a nation from engaging in a just war. However, positive conditions to not automatically validate a just war, merely lend to the preconditions that follow jus ad bellum.
2.
Jus ad bellum requires good intentions. Of course, this is entirely relative, but this is supposed to subset to a morally correct rubric in line with the international community (basically, the biggest power that be, whether that be NATO, the US, China, whoever.) Hilariously, that seems to imply a "might makes right" basis. LOL!
3.
Proportionality must be observed. Simply, there is a cost benefit analysis as far as the costs of war to gain in relation to the potential sacrifice. I think Fotion here makes the point broad, implying both moral proportionality and resource proportionality
4.
There must be a likelihood of success. Simply, you have to be sure that the campaign you start is finished so as not to devolve the present situation before it is molested by an outside power. I think of the first Iraq war in this case, where Hussein was left in power due to the threat of a power vacuum and various factions vying for control. Ironically, the second Gulf war seems to be rectifying the first Gulf war's broken jus ad bellum principles.
5.
War must be the last resort. Pretty simple, there must be no other recourse left before war is incurred.
6.
The sixth and perhaps most tricky point of jus ad bellum is legitimate authority. Honestly, I think point 2 does a good job implying this principle, but expressly implying is different than implicitly implying, so the point needs to be raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should all the previous criteria for jus ad bellum be reached, jus ad bello can be enacted. Interestingly enough, there are not as many criteria for a justice during the war as preceding the war itself. There are two primary principles;
1.
Proportionality. Fotion makes it clear that there should be a measure on par with the cost benefit analysis of the proportionality enacted in jus ad bellum. There are
numerous implications in this principle which are the stuff of many books. For instance, do we use nuclear devices to end the war quickly and save more lives in the process while sacrificing a good many more in the process? That kind of thing.
2.
Discrimination. Do you attack someone in uniform or not? Do you attack medics and the red cross or not? Do you leave civilians out of the fighting or include them in the enemy faction? Etc.
Although these two principles do not look like a whole lot, they substantially encapsulate most everything that can be asked in a jus ad scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for my own personal opinions on the issues, I have to agree with a good deal of what Fotion has to think about in terms of jus ad bellum. There must be an unequivocal meeting of terms for jus ad bellum before any military action can take place. But when war takes place, I tend to figure more along the lines of Carl Clausewitz (very old war philosopher). War should be a last resort in all instances, but when war is declared, it becomes everything short of attrition. That's what war essentially is. So actually, I would also adopt Fotion's notions of proportionality and discrimination mainly because those constraints are few and far between (but very broad in scope of definition should they be needed).
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace