Toward an ethics of violence? Flashcards
I. Defining war: a matter of intensity?
Jus ad vim: a definition War(s): definition
Short of War: definition War(s): summary
Examples
Why should we develop a specific ethics for measures short of war? Jus ad vim (Walzer)
An ethics for the limited use of force
Lightfoot print & leading from behind (Obama’s legacy) The limits
From soft to actual wars
The practices of war ranges on a wide spectrum, from soft wars to actual wars “Soft” wars:
Rarely involves a resort to arm
Does not involve kinetic measures
Does not involve killing and maiming Ex: kidnapping and extortion
“Hard” or “actual” wars:
Involves full-scale attacks, invasion
Involves “boots on the ground” Ex: war in the battlefield
Measures short of war
Measures short of war are always thought as being an alternative of war – and not part of war
Measures taken by a State before going to war – normally, in order not to go/declare war
Involve forceful measures in order to coerce Governed by international laws of war?
Drone strikes & targeted killings: which framework should we use?
The “war” criteria
1) Is the state at war?
2) Can the state resort to weapons?
3) Can the state deploy kinetic measures?
4) Can the state kill?
5) Can thet state engage in full-scale attacks?
- Short of war: no, yes, yes, yes, no
- Soft war: yes, rarely, no, no, no
- Actual war: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes
Examples of short of war, soft war, actual war
Short of war
* targeting killing
* Intelligence & espionage
* Economic sanctions
* Hostage taking
* Economic sanctions
Soft war:
* Kidnapping
* Intelligence & espionage
* Economic sanctions
* Hostage taking
* Economic sanctions
Actual war:
* Bombing
* Taking control of a city
* Destroying facilities
* Killing soldiers
* Destroying economic facilities
Tough cases:
Iran accused of having hacked the mail boxes of UK top leaders Drones killing in Pakistan (global war against terrorism)
Economic sanctions against Russia
II. The ethical principles of the jus ad vim
Michael Walzer, 2006 edition of Just and Unjust Wars:
Today, it is not about war anymore (bellum), but it is about violence (vim)
Difference between the two?
Nature of the impact of the violence (limited versus full-scale attack – ”below the
spectrum” violence)
Predictability (important versus minor)
Similarities
Practices whose goal is ultimately to coerce another state
Because the reality to frame has changed, our ethics must change: Jus ad vim
Renewal in the studies of civil war / low scale wars
From jus ad bellum to jus ad vim
Daniel Brunstetter, Megan Braun, From Jus ad Bellum to Jus ad Vim (2013)
“Walzer calls the ethical framework governing these measures jus ad vim (the just use of force) and he applies it to state sponsored uses of force against both state and non-state actors outside a state’s territory that fall short of the quantum and duration associated with traditional warfare. Compared to acts of war, jus ad vim actions present diminished risk to one’s own troops, have a destructive outcome that is more predictable and smaller in scale, severely curtail the risk of civilian casualties, and entail a lower economic and military burden. These factors make jus ad vim actions nominally easier for statesmen to justify compared to conventional warfare, though this does not necessarily mean these actions are morally legitimate or that they do not have potentially nefarious consequences.”
Why such an interest in measures short of war?
Why does Walzer use this distinction only in 2006?
Remember: the social context always shapes ethical considerations
9/11 and the “Global War against Terrorism”
A permanent state of war (too much jus ad bellum kills the jus ad bellum)
Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: quagmires and stalemates The (traumatic) memory of Vietnam
Boots on the ground: a bad solution?
Obama strategic shift: pivot to Asia & lightfoot print
Obama: the drones President
The economic crisis and the decrease of the defense budget
Obama and the war in Syria
Use of limited force instead of full-scale violence
Lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq: principle of last resort and legitimate
authority must be fully grounded in multilateralism
Opposition to large scale democracy building wars fought by the Bush administration
“I will not put American boots on the ground. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan… This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective, deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s capacities.”
The criteria of jus ad vim
More “permissive” just causes for the state: defense interpreted more broadly (injuria against its citizens or interests – terrorist bombing, hostage taking, imminent threats) and continually reassessed
- Last resort: means short of war are part of the traditional alternative solutions (Walzer), or are an alternative set of solutions (Brunstetter) => nonviolent/nonlethal actions should be tried first (lawfare, intelligence gathering before drone strikes), collateral damages will be judged more harshly
- Proportionality- probability of escalation: jus ad vim should not escalate the situation (drone strikes in Pakistan), but what about preemptive jus ad vim (WMD)?
- Right intention: upholding the rights of the Other
- Legitimate authority: unilateral state action (“right to remedy”) or collective international
exercise (no-fly zones) with authorization by the Un Security Council
- Quoted from Danial Brunstetter, Megan Braun, From Jus ad Bellum to Jus ad Vim (2013)
The limits of jus ad vim
Overlap - short of war and softwar, even to jus ad vim is only short of war
A revisionist critique of jus ad vim
Jus ad vim is badly motivated: jus ad bellum also implies to continually reassess our use of force (no short-term vision) + escalation is already included in the proportionality requirements
- No advantage of jus ad vim to address drone strikes: a better understanding of proportionality shows that we can judge collateral damages and destructions by drones more harshly (the just cause is less important and warrants less collateral harm)
We don’t need new criteria
Quoted from Helen Frowe, “On the redundancy of jus ad vim: an answer to Daniel Brunstetter and Megan Braun”, Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 30, Issue 1, 2016
III. The ethics of means “shorts of war”
“Despite the proliferation [of drones], there remains a lack of consensus among international lawyers and between states on the core legal principles. It’s not the drone that is the problem. The problem is the lack of clarity under which it is lawful to deploy lethal force by drone”
Ben Emmerson, UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism about drone strikes, The Guardian, 2013
Focus on 2 examples of “jus ad vim” strategies:
Wars of communication Hostage-taking
War and information
War is about communicating To one’s troops
To one’s citizens
War is about signaling To one’s citizens
To the world
To the opponents
To the allies
Ruse and trickery
Willingness to fool the opponent by lying/ hiding one’s intentions False documents “opportunely” intercepted by the opponent False messages
In this war, Intelligence is key
Famous cases:
The Petya virus
The use of chemical weapons in Syria
=> Ruse vs dishonesty? Is there a moral distinction? The lion and the fox (Machiavelli)
