Politics Information |
Just War
In an age of terrorism, guerilla and total warfare the medieval doctrine of Just War needs to be re-defined. Moreover, issues of legitimacy, efficacy and morality should not be confused. Legitimacy is conferred by institutions. Not all morally justified wars are, therefore, automatically legitimate. Frequently the efficient execution of a battle plan involves immoral or even illegal acts. As international law evolves beyond the ancient percepts of sovereignty, it should incorporate new thinking about pre-emptive strikes, human rights violations as casus belli and the role and standing of international organizations, insurgents and liberation movements. Yet, inevitably, what constitutes "justice" depends heavily on the cultural and societal contexts, narratives, mores, and values of the disputants. Thus, one cannot answer the deceivingly simple question: "Is this war a just war?" - without first asking: "According to whom? In which context? By which criteria? Based on what values? In which period in history and where?" Being members of Western Civilization, whether by choice or by default, our understanding of what constitutes a just war is crucially founded on our shifting perceptions of the West. Imagine a village of 220 inhabitants. It has one heavily armed police constable flanked by two lightly equipped assistants. The hamlet is beset by a bunch of ruffians who molest their own families and, at times, violently lash out at their neighbors. These delinquents mock the authorities and ignore their decisions and decrees. Yet, the village council - the source of legitimacy - refuses to authorize the constable to apprehend the villains and dispose of them, by force of arms if need be. The elders see no imminent or present danger to their charges and are afraid of potential escalation whose evil outcomes could far outweigh anything the felons can achieve. Incensed by this laxity, the constable - backed only by some of the inhabitants - breaks into the home of one of the more egregious thugs and expels or kills him. He claims to have acted preemptively and in self-defense, as the criminal, long in defiance of the law, was planning to attack its representatives. Was the constable right in acting the way he did? On the one hand, he may have saved lives and prevented a conflagration whose consequences no one could predict. On the other hand, by ignoring the edicts of the village council and the expressed will of many of the denizens, he has placed himself above the law, as its absolute interpreter and enforcer. What is the greater danger? Turning a blind eye to the exploits of outlaws and outcasts, thus rendering them ever more daring and insolent - or acting unilaterally to counter such pariahs, thus undermining the communal legal foundation and, possibly, leading to a chaotic situation of "might is right"? In other words, when ethics and expedience conflict with legality - which should prevail? Enter the medieval doctrine of "Just War" (justum bellum, or, more precisely jus ad bellum), propounded by Saint Augustine of Hippo (fifth century AD), Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in his "Summa Theologicae", Francisco de Vitoria (1548-1617), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in his influential tome "Jure Belli ac Pacis" ("On Rights of War and Peace", 1625), Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767). Modern thinkers include Michael Walzer in "Just and Unjust Wars" (1977), Barrie Paskins and Michael Dockrill in "The Ethics of War" (1979), Richard Norman in "Ethics, Killing, and War" (1995), Thomas Nagel in "War and Massacre", and Elizabeth Anscombe in "War and Murder". According to the Catholic Church's rendition of this theory, set forth by Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in his Letter to President Bush on Iraq, dated September 13, 2002, going to war is justified if these conditions are met: "The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." A just war is, therefore, a last resort, all other peaceful conflict resolution options having been exhausted. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy sums up the doctrine thus: "The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: Having just cause (especially and, according to the United Nations Charter, exclusively, self-defense); Being (formally) declared by a proper authority; Possessing a right intention; Having a reasonable chance of success; The end being proportional to the means used." Yet, the evolution of warfare - the invention of nuclear weapons, the propagation of total war, the ubiquity of guerrilla and national liberation movements, the emergence of global, border-hopping terrorist organizations, of totalitarian regimes, and rogue or failed states - requires these principles to be modified by adding these tenets: That the declaring authority is a lawfully and democratically elected government. That the declaration of war reflects the popular will. (Extension of 3) The right intention is to act in just cause. (Extension of 4) ... or a reasonable chance of avoiding an annihilating defeat. (Extension of 5) That the outcomes of war are preferable to the outcomes of the preservation of peace. Still, the doctrine of just war, conceived in Europe in eras past, is fraying at the edges. Rights and corresponding duties are ill-defined or mismatched. What is legal is not always moral and what is legitimate is not invariably legal. Political realism and quasi-religious idealism sit uncomfortably within the same conceptual framework. Norms are vague and debatable while customary law is only partially subsumed in the tradition (i.e., in treaties, conventions and other instruments, as well in the actual conduct of states). The most contentious issue is, of course, what constitutes "just cause". Self-defense, in its narrowest sense (reaction to direct and overwhelming armed aggression), is a justified casus belli. But what about the use of force to (deontologically, consequentially, or ethically): Prevent or ameliorate a slow-motion or permanent humanitarian crisis; Preempt a clear and present danger of aggression ("anticipatory or preemptive self-defense" against what Grotius called "immediate danger"); Secure a safe environment for urgent and indispensable humanitarian relief operations; Restore democracy in the attacked state ("regime change"); Restore public order in the attacked state; Prevent human rights violations or crimes against humanity or violations of international law by the attacked state; Keep the peace ("peacekeeping operations") and enforce compliance with international or bilateral treaties between the aggressor and the attacked state or the attacked state and a third party; Suppress armed infiltration, indirect aggression, or civil strife aided and abetted by the attacked state; Honor one's obligations to frameworks and treaties of collective self-defense; Protect one's citizens or the citizens of a third party inside the attacked state; Protect one's property or assets owned by a third party inside the attacked state; Respond to an invitation by the authorities of the attacked state - and with their expressed consent - to militarily intervene within the territory of the attacked state; React to offenses against the nation's honor or its economy. Unless these issues are resolved and codified, the entire edifice of international law - and, more specifically, the law of war - is in danger of crumbling. The contemporary multilateral regime proved inadequate and unable to effectively tackle genocide (Rwanda, Bosnia), terror (in Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea), and tyranny (in dozens of members of the United Nations). This feebleness inevitably led to the resurgence of "might is right" unilateralism, as practiced, for instance, by the United States in places as diverse as Grenada and Iraq. This pernicious and ominous phenomenon is coupled with contempt towards and suspicion of international organizations, treaties, institutions, undertakings, and the prevailing consensual order. In a unipolar world, reliant on a single superpower for its security, the abrogation of the rules of the game could lead to chaotic and lethal anarchy with a multitude of "rebellions" against the emergent American Empire. International law - the formalism of "natural law" - is only one of many competing universalist and missionary value systems. Militant Islam is another. The West must adopt the former to counter the latter. About The Author Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 . Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia. Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com
MORE RESOURCES: Unable to open template $TEMPLATEfilename, exiting |
RELATED ARTICLES
Dafur Emergency: A Challenge To Civilisation With pain rocking through my whole body today, I cast a bitter glance back at what I called, the 'tragedy of Dafur' and decided to settle accounts with my fellow Africans on this matter.President Omar el-Bashir has twisted history, invented a distortion in African lexicon and rammed it through our throats. Voters are to Blame for Bad Politics When I was growing up, I actually considered a career in politics. I quickly changed my mind, though, when I discovered that there was way too much politics involved in it. The G-8 and Other Figureheads The Presidents Before Washington:From the moment that the first Declaration of Independence in Mecklenburg, North Carolina took place (if not before) there were people leading the cause of American Independence. But the Presidents of the Continental Congress starting with Peyton Randolph should be considered as key figures in the history of this façade called America. Recycling The Mentally Ill 30 years ago, California, later followed by other states, decided to virtually close down the State Mental Hospitals.There had been multiple exposures of abuse throughout the Nation's systems such as over-medicated individuals kept on back wards for years without clinical justification. Count Rumford Why did FDR say Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Count Rumford were the three most important Americans? (1) Why did the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburgs make Benjamin Thompson a nobleman? James Bond had nothing on this man of mystery.FDR lauds their intellect and does not say why they were truly all that important. Is The Bill Of Rights Necessary? The Bill of Rights to our Constitution caused -- and still causes - some contradiction, confusion and danger with the Constitution itself. It is unfortunate that a bill of rights was included with the Constitution. How Can We Prevent Black Outs and Protect the Grid? The idea is to have all the important items with minimal back-up systems while things are restored. There are so many ideas we have not explored and should explore. Government is a Franchise System; just not a very good one Few understand the Franchising Format and even fewer have correlated that to our modern government structure. The United States Government is set up much like a franchising system. Protecting Our Buses from International Terrorists We know that the International Terrorists like the idea of attacking buses as we watch every week another attack in Israel. There have many ideas on how buses like Greyhound might protect the drivers through use of a high-tech ultra-strength plastic shields or enclosed see-through boxes. The Internet Right - Are They Doing It Right It looks overall like the liberals are advocating for no lines to be drawn on most matters. The right insists there are lines, very clear and important lines. Political Correctness got you down? I hear it all the time; you can't say that. But why not, I just did you see? Besides it's the truth isn't it? They say; "well yes, it is the truth, but you cannot say that!" Do you sometimes believe it is all a bunch of crap? We have the PC police running around telling you what you can and cannot say now? Wow, I know there is a law about how you are to do just about everything you do, but now we have unspoken laws about things you cannot speak of and it is all a big secret? And do not ask what these things are you cannot even mention it. Politicians Will Save Civilization Most politicians are completely out to lunch and totally Machiavellian by nature, they cannot be trusted. We tend to elect the most manipulative politicians to higher offices and condemn the one's who really care. Free Trade, Outsourcing, Protectionism and Reality Check Recently on C-SPAN, there were two gentlemen debating free trade one from the CATO Institute for free trade. Yet he failed to mention the real problem, the lawyers, over regulation and government bureaucracy. Free Markets, Wal-Mart, Over Regulation; What an interesting concept? Unions are angry at the high salary of the executives which have gotten a little out of line especially as the companies are laying off workers and the company is not making a profit. However, a man should put in an honest day for that which he was hired and that does not mean just showing up and punching the clock but actually providing some real work and productivity. Look! America Take a Look! I heard on the news this week how America continues to battle to bring democracy in Iraq. The people of Iraq really don't seem to want a free country governed by their own people. The Professions of the Future Predicting the future is a tricky business. There have been countless ridiculous failures at identifying the trends and products which will determine the future shape of our life and our environment. How to Deal with Poverty A SOLUTION FOR EMPLOYMENT PROBLEMS TO AID IN THE FIGHT AGAINST POVERTYI know that with globalization the future looks brighter and brighter for many people: But will many people also be left behind in this expanding economy? I know that with technology expanding as it is, many of the jobs that required more human effort are disappearing while other types of jobs that involve more technical expertise are being created. Now do the jobs created by this expanding technology compensate for the loss of jobs in the non-tech sector, considering also the expanding population around the world? Two problems arise. Carl von Clausewitz On War For anyone who wishes to become an armchair General in their living room while watching the nightly news unfold on their TV set, these are some things they need to know. So often the news media will give opinions and ask other reporters what they think about this or that or the other thing. Upcoming Palestinian Elections Might Put Extremists In Power The Palestinian Fatah Movement is doing whatever it can to brush up its image in the run up to this Summer's parliamentary elections, including the appointment of young blood into the ranks. The outcome of the elections is going to be of crucial importance for the chances of peace with Israel as well as the country's division of power. Jay Hammond - Alaska Governor and Creator of the Permanent Fund Former Governor of Alaska, Jay Hammond, died at age 83, peacefully at his home in Lake Clark, Alaska. He served Alaska as its Governor from 1974 to 1982, the years during which Alaska built an incredible oil pipeline, banked a large amount of the oil lease revenues, and created a dividend program that every resident of Alaska benefits from yearly. |
home | site map | contact us |