Neta C. Crawford - Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War Flashcards
Jus ad bellum
In assessing whether war is acceptable, modern just war theorists first ask whether the cause is just. They (and, now, international law) proclaim that wars of aggression are unjust; selfdefense is the only unambiguously legitimate justification for the use of force.14 One may then justifiably reply to armed aggression with force. And one may also, in cases of a credible threat of imminent attack, act preemptively to prevent such a threat from being realized. On the other hand, preventive war, waged to defeat a potential adversary before its military power can grow to rival your own, is not just. The criterion of just cause is related to another, right intention, specifically the pursuit of peace and reconciliation. States may seek to restore peace and the status quo ante, but revenge or “justice” is not a proper aim of war.15
Jus ad bellum also contends that war must be the last resort, which entails a search for options other than the use of military force, and the patient application of the nonmilitary methods that might be successful. Force becomes acceptable, in this view, only when other methods will not work. The criterion is clear, but deceptively so. How can we know that all options were tried before force was used? States sometimes use force too quickly, without seriously attempting to use mediation, diplomacy, or economic carrots and sticks. Yet how long should nonmilitary methods of resolving a dispute (e.g., diplomacy or sanctions) be attempted before we can say those options have been exhausted?
According to another jus ad bellum criterion, wars should be undertaken only by competent or legitimate authorities, classically understood as sovereign states. Indeed, James Turner Johnson argues that this should be the first criterion that one considers, since only a competent authority can make all the other determinations required by just war thinking.16 Further, war should be undertaken only if success is probable. And finally, jus ad bellum calls for the proportionality of ends—recognizing that even a just war in response to injury does harm and so the overall good of the war should outweigh that harm.
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE JUS AD BELLUM
Justa Causa (Just Cause)
Recta Intentio (Right Intentions)
Recta Auctoritas (Right Authority)
Last Resort
Proportionality of Ends
Reasonable Hope of Success
Jus in bello
Once war is considered justified, its conduct must be judged according to jus in bello criteria: proportionality and discrimination.
The proportionality criterion prescribes that the violence be in proportion to the aims of war; gratuitous violence should be avoided. To this injunction, we might add Kant’s prudent prohibition of behaviors in war—including assassination, poison, breach of surrender, and the instigation of treason in the opposing nation—that would hurt the prospect of peace: “Some level of trust in the enemy’s way of thinking must be preserved, even in the midst of war, for otherwise no peace can ever be concluded and the hostilities would become a war of extermination.”
Discrimination is the injunction to avoid injuring noncombatants. Of course, noncombatants are often in danger, and their injury or death is sometimes the unintended consequence of force. According to the doctrine of “double effect,” such deaths may be permissible (albeit regrettable) if the military goal of the action was just; noncombatant injuries were unintended; and military effects outweighed the unintended effects on noncombatants. Or as Michael Walzer says, “What we look for in such cases is some sign of a positive commitment to saving [noncombatant] lives.”
