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. 21^st 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.