Jus ad bellum (I): Who should wage war and when? Flashcards
Introduction: when should we resort to war?
JUS AD BELLUM
Proper authority: what about non state actors?
Public declaration : ultimatum ? followed only rarely => today norm of accountability that requires states to justify publicly their use of force at least ex post.
Right Intention: how do you assess intentions?
Chances/Probability of success: goals?
Proportionality: the goods vs. the evils of war
Last resort: alternative to war?
Just cause: Self-defense / Responsibility to protect?
Legitimate authority and the just war tradition
- Pre-Westphalian context: God as the legitimate authority, the religious/virtuous Prince
- \Westphalian treaties: the sovereign state under jus gentium (Grotius, Gentili)
- XXth century: representatives of the people (state agents and institutions such as the government or the Parliament), under the control of international Law and public scrutiny (Walzer)
New legitimate authorities in the XXIst century?
- Political agents who act on behalf of the state (Wilson, 1988)
- Non-state political communities? (Shanahan, 2009), national liberation
movements (postcolonial warfare), national communities, failed states - Moral agents who act for the public good (international organizations, green helmets (Eckersley 2007))
A war referendum? The Ludlow Amendment (1938)
Principles:
- The people as legitimate authority (except in case of foreign invasion)
- Isolationism: avoidance of foreign entanglements
- Pacifism: diminish the risk of potential conflicts
A revisionist justification of legitimate authority
The question of authorization (Lazar, 2016)
- Fighing without authorization constitutes an additionnal wrong (puts the
comunity at risk) – especially without popular authorization
- Authorization can allow the government to act on positive reasons for fighing that would otherwise be unavailable (like the defense of the interest of the people)
Looking for the right intention
“The natural order, which is suited to the peace of mortal things, requires that the authority and deliberation for undertaking war be under the control of a leader, and also that, in the executing of military commands, soldiers serve peace and the common well-being” (Augustine, Against Faustus the Manichean, bk. XXII, chaps. 74-5, 78)
Christian right intention: vs libido dominandi
Four models of right intention (Grynaviski, 2016)
- Peace-directed: intention to create just peace
- Pure intentions and excuses for war: a necessary connection with just cause
- Mixed motives: the war can only be partly motivated by a just cause
- Outcomes-oriented accounts: If a war is fought that achieves some just cause even if it was motivated only by unjust motives, the war remains just
Right intention and R2P
R2P: a definition (2005 World Summit Outcome Document)
“Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (…] The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter (…] In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.
A right intention (humanitarian/charitable)?
Is right intention relevant for JWT?
- Too difficult to evaluate (Jeff MacMahan 2005)
- Too blurry (Johnson, 2001)
- Could be easily merged with just cause (Teson, 2011)
III. Reasonable probability of success
For a war to be just, the prince ought to be so sure of the degree of his power, that he is morally certain of victory. The first reason for this conclusion is the fact that otherwise the prince would incur the evident peril of inflicting upon his commonwealth losses greater than the advantages involved” (Francisco Suarez, From Disputatio XIII. Section IV: What Is a Just Title for War, on the basis of Natural Reason?)
=> Applies only to offensive wars
Probability or expectation?
Expectation: “decision makers are able to predict a reasonable expectation of success, but only reasonable expectation not assurance” (Ramsey 2002)
Probability: considerably more likely (scientific predictions)
Probability: epistemic and moral biases
Highly difficult to predict the future, even for “epistemic communities” (Peter Haas)
Highly difficult to build normative assumptions on what may or may not happen in the future (what about moral luck? – Bernard Williams)
Preventive wars and the gamble of war
- What if we were able to know about the intentions and the capabilities of our opponents to wage war against ourselves?
- Example: the case of anticipatory strikes (drone strikes), a new type of war after defensive and offensive wars
- Infinite justifications and imaginations (Colonomos, 2013)
Declaring or not declaring war, that is the question
“The war on both sides must be public and official and there must be princes on both sides to direct the war (…] princes are only supreme and they alone merit the title of public, while all others are inferior and are rated as private individuals” (Alberico Gentili, On the Law of War, book I, Chapter III: War is Wages by Princes)
Public vs private wars (also Grotius)
Public wars as honorable wars (vs surprise) - chivalry
Liberal democracies and declarations of war
The necessity of political/civilian control: the Parliament
Parliamentary decision: USA, France
Parliamentary control/authorization: Finland, Spain
In practice: mostly undeclared wars/military interventions since 1945 (USA in Vietnam, France in Syria for example) – strategic purposes
