Research
Question: Is War Ever Justified?
Introduction
Violence
and warfare have always been, and probably always will be, a key part of how
humanity achieves its immediate needs and wants. However, in recent centuries
increased international regulations regarding warfare have begun to reflect more
pacifist ideals that have been spreading throughout humanity. Reasons for
declaring war and methods of fighting a war are now regulated by the United
Nations and the international laws of war, though these regulations are often
ignored. However, it is important that the concept of a just war, though far
from new, is being instituted as international law. A just war, as proposed by
the Just War Theory, can exist as long as it follows the stringent guidelines of
the theory.
Though accepted as necessity throughout most of human
history, warfare has become a subject of debate by philosophers ever since the
mass conflicts of World War I and World War II. Perhaps this is “due to the
exponential growth in the efficiency of and access to the means of violence in
the modern era, to the unprecedented carnage the twentieth century saw, or to
the emergence of champions of nonviolence such as Mohandas Gandhi” (Cady).
Whatever the reasons, organized violence has become subject to numerous
international sanctions, controlled first by the League of Nations and now by
the United Nations (Schwartz). While it is important to note that these laws of
warfare are often ignored by combatants, the general push to regulate war is a
symptom of many modern societies’ disgust with armed conflict (Schmitt).
Section 1: Ideologies of Warfare
Justification
There
are three schools of thought regarding the ethics of warfare: Realism, Just War
Theory, and Pacifism (in order of decreasing propensity for violence). Realism
suggests that morality cannot be applied to warfare; that the interests of
nation-states are simply to increase the prosperity of themselves and increase
their international influence. “Realists believe that moral concepts should be
employed neither as descriptions of, nor as prescriptions for, state behavior
on the international plane” (Orend). Historically, most nations have been built
on Realist principles; for example, the Roman Empire’s growth depended on
invasion and war against nations often for no reason other than expansion.
Another example is the United States’ rise to power; the Mexican and
Spanish-American Wars are two wars fought for no reason other than an
opportunity to take control of resources at the expense of another nation.
Realism reflects opportunism and the willingness to make war for no reason
other than expansion of power.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Pacifism is the
school of thought that rejects warfare as a whole. “Literally and
straightforwardly, a pacifist rejects war in favor of peace” (Orend). “Pacifism
is a commitment to peace and opposition to war” (Fiala). A pacifist will always
assume that a better option exists than warfare to accomplish one’s desires and
needs. Few nations in history have adopted a pacifist view, though this is
necessary if complete world peace is ever to be achieved. Examples of countries
without a standing military include Costa Rica and Liechtenstein.
Just War Theory is currently used as the basis for most
international law regarding warfare. It postulates that warfare can be commenced
given circumstances fulfill all six of the following conditions (jus ad bellum):
·
Just Cause
·
Right Intention
·
Proper Authority and Public Declaration
·
Last Resort, Probability of Success
·
Proportionality
However,
once on the battlefield certain standards must be obeyed (jus in bello):
·
Obey International Weapons Prohibition
·
Non-Combatant Immunity
·
Proportionality
·
Prisoner-of-War Conduct
·
No ‘evil means’ to accomplish an end
·
No Reprisals
Further,
after the war is over, another set of regulations must be followed (jus post bellum):
·
Proportionality and Publicity
·
Rights Vindication
·
Discrimination
·
Punishment of leaders and soldiers on
both sides of the conflict
·
Compensation and Rehabilitation
Clearly
the justification of a war is a lengthy process, and this is intended to halt
countries from needlessly going to war (Orend). An example used by this school
of thought as a just war is World War II (from the Allied perspective). Most
modern nations (ostensibly) follow this theory.
The horrors of World Wars I and II, both in combat and
for civilians, convinced many nations in the world to come together and create
international standards that currently define a just war in accordance with the
Just War Theory. In two waves coming after each war, the nations of the world
further defined the rules of conflict originally started by the 1868 St.
Petersburg Declaration (Schmitt). These laws of war, including clauses to limit
damage to civilian property and to illegalize certain types of weapons from
use, are intended to make war a safer and less destructive business for those
involved. They reflect the international understanding that, with the
exponential growth of firepower of modern weapons, an all-out conventional war
between high-tech and industrialized nations could end life on the planet. They
also show an increased awareness of natural human rights to life and the means
to live it (Schwartz).
Section 2: Case Studies of Warfare
Justification (Just War Theory)
We
will attempt here to determine if Just War Theory provides sufficient
regulations on warfare to render it a useful tool by using case studies of
modern conflicts. If a war is fought according to the theory then it is
justified according to the theory.
The
2003 invasion of Iraq is an example of a war fought along the Realist
rationalization. Ignoring the jus ad
bellum rules of proportionality and proper authority and public
declaration, the war was begun contrary to international law. Further, the jus in bello rules of proportionality,
prisoner-of-war conduct, and non-combat immunity were often
overlooked. Finally, the jus post bellum
rules of rights vindication, compensation, and rehabilitation
have been ignored. Thus the war was not fought along Just War Theory rules
(Katel).
The invasion of Afghanistan by coalition troops after the
bombing of the World Trade Center is often considered a ‘good war’ compared to
Iraq because of better adherence to the jus
ad bellum rules. However, it failed the test of a just war according to the
Just War Theory because of failures to adhere to the same jus in bello and jus post
bellum rules as the conflict in Iraq. Any reference to Afghanistan as a
just war is incorrect; Afghanistan can also only be justified through the
theory of Realism (“Just”).
In contrast, the United Nations ‘Responsibility to
Protect’ doctrine (R2P) is designed along the lines of Just War Theory.
Instituted in 2005, R2P “holds that the world community has a moral duty to
halt genocide — even inside a sovereign country” (Katz). R2P involves the
stationing of UN troops in areas such as Darfur and Serbia in order to preserve
the peace and protect civilians, and automatically fulfills the requirements of
jus ad bellum; whether it will
fulfill jus in bello and jus post bellum remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, R2P has “failed the test” of effectiveness in Darfur and has yet
to be used. However, it remains an example of a just war—it is intended only to
increase the safety and security of people around the world (Katz).
Section 3: Just War Theory
Applications to Counter-Terrorism
Unfortunately, warfare has evolved since the creation of
the just war theory. 21st century warfare, such as the
aforementioned Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, represent a wholly different
type of warfare than the World Wars. Asymmetrical warfare, referring to “hostilities
in which one side is dramatically superior to the other,” causes an automatic
disavowal of the laws of war by the disadvantaged side. For example, the Iraqi
military, despite having overwhelming numerical superiority, was routed in a
matter of weeks due to the American technologically advanced “intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance, and communications systems” that gave coalition
forces absolute control over the battlefields (Schmitt). Thus, after their
conventional defeat Iraqi insurgents turned to guerilla warfare, against the
rules of jus in bello. Examples of this
phenomenon include IEDs, human shields, and terrorist bombings.
Combat against insurgents is nearly always asymmetrical
in the modern era, forcing insurgents to break the laws of war, and by
extension the just war theory. “Unable to engage the enemy directly, insurgents
have adopted tactics and strategies that either skirt the law, or violate it
outright” (Schmitt). For example, insurgents in Gaza do not wear uniforms as it
would identify them to the Israeli military; however, this endangers civilians,
who can be more easily mistaken for combatants. More obviously, “Vehicles
marked with the Red Crescent emblem (Red Cross equivalent) have been used to
enable insurgents to get close enough to attack their targets” (Schmitt).
In order to combat these tactics, conventional militaries
ostensibly committed to the Just War Theory have broken the rules of jus in bello and jus post bellum. For example, many rights groups “contend the
United States is violating the Geneva Convention by holding captives from the war in
Afghanistan incommunicado” (Masci).
In fact, the international laws on warfare have come
under attack because of counter-terrorism efforts. Some advocates believe it
must be strengthened in order to better “protect the innocent,” including
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, while others contend it should be weakened,
stating that “it impedes the need to meet new [terrorist] threats” (Schmitt).
This juxtaposition between military necessity and humanitarian needs goes back
to the roots of the laws of war, posing the following question: At what point
does military necessity outweigh the right of civilians to live their lives in
peace and safety?
Conclusion
As defined by the Just War Theory, a just war can exist.
Though a future without warfare can be hoped for, and dreamed about, the theory
of Pacifism depends on the fact that everyone prescribes to the theory, an
extreme unlikelihood. In contrast, Realism would allow strong nations to
confiscate power from the weaker on whims, leading to an endless cycle of
warfare. A UN formal adoption of the Just War Theory, along with real
enforcement, would propagate world peace, and help move in the direction of
Pacifism, the ideal state.
Works
Cited
Cady, Duane L. "Violence."
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Donald M. Borchert. 2nd ed. Vol.
9. Detroit:
Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. 677-678. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 29 Nov.
2013.
Fiala, Andrew. "Pacifism."
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
Web. 1 Dec. 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu>.
"Just War." Gale Encyclopedia
of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 6. Detroit:
Gale,
2011. 101-104. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.
Katel, Peter. "The Iraq War: 10
Years Later." CQ Researcher 1 Mar. 2013: 205-32. Web. 29
Nov. 2013.
Katz, Lee Michael. "World
Peacekeeping." CQ Global Researcher 1 Apr. 2007: 75-100. Web. 29
Nov.
2013.
Orend, Brian. "War." Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosphy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Web. 1 Dec. 2013.
<http://plato.stanford.edu>.
Schmitt, Michael N. "The Vanishing
Law of War." Harvard International
Review Vol.31, No.1.
Spring
2009: 64-68. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 29 Nov 2013.
Schwartz, Jonathan. Personal interview.
2 Dec. 2013.
