Jus ad bellum (II): Why should war be waged? Flashcards
War as last resort
“Although the prince will never make any decision hastily, he will never be more hesitant or more circumspect than in starting a war […] The good prince will never start a war at all unless, after everything else has been tried, it cannot by any means be avoided. If we were all agreed on this, there would hardly ever be a war among men” (Erasmus of Rotterdam, The Education of a Christian Prince, 1516)
Last resort: strategic and moral reasoning/calculus Aristotelian phronesis?
No other choice= imminence of the danger
Last resort in recent just war theory
Walzer: “if there are potentially effective ways of avoiding actual fighting when still confronting the aggressor, they should be tried” (Arguing about War, 2004, 88-89)
Coady: last resort “enjoins us to make serious efforts at peaceful resolutions of our political problems before resorting to the sword” (Morality and Political Violence, 2008, 91)
Alternatives to war
Diplomacy (treaty, international mediation)
Economic sanctions: example of Germany (1919), Rhodesia (1965),
Iraq (1990s)
Legal sanctions: the case of lawfare (USA vs Iran)
The issue with temporality
What constitutes an imminent danger?
Example of the US drone strikes in Pakistan/”drone war” (2000s- 2010s) – Disposition Matrix
II. Proportionality
“Care must be taken to ensure that the evil effects of war do not outweigh the possible benefits sought by waging it” (Francisco de Vitoria, On the Law of War, 1532)
Assess the good vs the evil of war
Addition to the “probability/chances of success”
Just benefits vs evil effects
Just benefits:
Peace
Defeat of an unjust opponent
Evil effects:
Killings
Political/economic collapse
Environmental destructions
=> A need for continual reassessment of proportionality during the conflict
The doctrine of double effect
“Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one’s life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7)
Difference between intended and accidental effects
“if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”
Fighting for a just cause
“As it belongs to sovereign princes to undertake and carry on wars and battles, we must now consider the causes by which, according to lawful means, they may be initiated and pursued. […] Five grounds are commonly held to be the basis of war, three of which rest on law and the remaining two on will […] maintain law and justice, counteract evildoers who befoul, injure and oppress the land and the people […] and recover lands, lordships stolen and usurped for an unjust cause. As for the two of will, one is to avenge loss or damage incurred, the other to conquer and take over foreign lands or lordships”
Christine de Pizan, The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry, pt.I, chaps. 2-5, 7, 20, 1410
Just cause in chivalric times = law, justice, defense, vengeance and conquest = defensive wars vs punitive wars
The problem of “simultaneous ostensible justice”
Medieval context: If each side claimed to have justice on its side, how was one to determine where justice lays? => problem of relativism
“It if it agreed that both parties have right and justice on their side, they cannot lawfully fight each other, either defensively or offensively” (Vitoria, On the Law of War, 1532)
=> We must find the right criteria
Walzer vs Rodin, traditionalists vs revisionists
Walzer (2006) identifies only two just causes: national defense and humanitarian intervention (punitive war?)
Why? => states protect the human rights of their citizens (individual security, the life of the community, the social contract)
Rodin (2002): “bloodless invasion objection” => no threat to security
A. Legitimate self-defense
“They [the Utopians] loathe war as positively bestial […], and unlike almost all nations they consider nothing more inglorious than glory won in warfare. Therefore, […] they are reluctant to go to war and do so only to defend their territory, or to drive an invading enemy from the territory of their friends, or else, out of compassion and humanity” (Thomas More, Utopia, bk II, 1516)
Self defense = territorial/national defens
A. Legitimate self-defense
“They [the Utopians] loathe war as positively bestial […], and unlike almost all nations they consider nothing more inglorious than glory won in warfare. Therefore, […] they are reluctant to go to war and do so only to defend their territory, or to drive an invading enemy from the territory of their friends, or else, out of compassion and humanity” (Thomas More, Utopia, bk II, 1516)
Self defense = territorial/national defens
Case study Gulf War, 1991: from national to collective self-defense?
1991: Iraq invades Kuwait
US led a coalition legally justified by collective self defense (art. 51 – UN
Charter)
No regime change => postwar: heavy sanctions aimed at dismantling WMD + use of limited force
Ex: Desert Fox (Clinton): four day bombing campaign in 1998 targeted WMD dual use facilities
Mixed results: key targets destroyed, setting back the program but further antagonized the regime => international agents = not allowed in the country anymore
Collective self defense? Individual self defense?
Preventive or preemptive self defense?
- Prevention vs preemption
- Counterfactual thinking
- Risk adverse societies (Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, 1992)
Preventive self-defense: the Caroline Test
Caroline, 1837: British forces burn and sink an American ship suspected of delivering weapons to the Canadian independence movement
Caroline test: preventive self defense must be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”
Last resort (necessity) + proportionality
Cases of preventive strikes: the Begin doctrine
Operation Opera, Osirak, 1981
Condemnation by the UN: “clear violation of the Charter of the United
Nations and the norms of international conduct”
Operation “Outside the Box”, Deir ez-Zor, 2007
No international condemnation
Use of cyberweapons vs Syria’s air-defense systems
Ex: Changes of jus ad bellum from G.W. Bush to Barack Obama
2001: Afghanistan: Hunt down terrorists and overthrow Taliban regime
Bush administration recognized that “principles of traditional just war theory provide a framework for organizing critique of presumed US plans for Iraq” (2002)
National Security Strategy 2002: just cause includes regime change, preventive war
2010 National Security Strategy: emphasis on last resort
B. Humanitarian intervention: from a punitive to a preventive conception of justice?
Origin: theological, ok to wage punitive war?
Justus hostis: the enemy is defined by the act he/she committed
Grounded in a conception of retributive justice (war to enforce a conception of justice)
Today: punition is not legitimate anymore because of moral pluralism
Shift toward a preventive conception of Justice
ID: to prevent a greater harm and enforce international Law
Responsibility to protect (R2P)
2001: Ad hoc international Commission on intervention and state sovereignty Report R2P
2005 World Summit (para 138/139): “the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”
Right to use military force by taking “collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including chapter VII, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”
A success story in the history of norms?
Michael Walzer on R2P, 2013
- Protect from what? “Mass murder, ethnic cleansing on a large scale, mass rape, and state-sponsored terror (no civil war)”
- Protect when? “As soon as the killing or the terror begins, the effort to stop it, by force if necessary (and it is usually necessary) must also begin”
- Who should protect? “Anyone can, should”
- What limits? “Chances of success + Proportionality”
- When does responsibility end?
- Regime change? Not necessarily: “Communism and democracy are political projects only - for what is involved is not the protection of lives but the promotion of an ideology. This may be the best ideology, but what is required in its promotion is political not military action. Protection, by contrast, requires whatever action is necessary”
IV. The politics of just war: the West vs the rest
A normative change?
Nature of conflict: civilians are more and more vulnerable (Susan Strange, “New Wars”)
Sovereignty: from the sovereignty of the state to the sovereignty of the people + from nonintervention to moral responsibility?
Individual rights prevail on collective rights/human rights prevail on the political rights of states
Does it serve a cosmopolitan agenda?
Cecile Fabre, Cosmopolitan wars
The collective plays a central role in war since they are fought because of collective claims
Political borders are arbitrary and irrelevant when we discuss rights
How to reformulate norms from a radical individualist view?
Cosmopolitanism = individuals all matter equally, irrespective of their membership in any political community
Double standards for R2P?
Clear intent of HR violations: Gaddafi: “we are coming tonight. There won’t be any mercy”
US led coalition
Consensus: SC + Arab League
28 days
Limited force: no fly zone + no
occupation forces
Clear case of massacre (Un reports) US led coalition
2011: first draft, ref. to R2P
No consensus (4 vetos of Russia at
SC btw 2011 and 2014) “Red line”?
Mixed motives?
Imperialism.
Realism?
The thought experiment – would it be justified for Sweden to launch a humanitarian intervention in the US for prisoners’ human rights?
C.H. Wellman, “Is the US legal system a crime against humanity?” (2014 – video)
