2Origins of the Just War Theory Western OriginDeveloped over timeRomans affirmed right-authority and proportionalityInfluenced by ChristianityLate middle ages before concept is completed and incorporatedNot developed in any single case, overtimeThird century BC number of elements in placeEarly Christian contributions came from Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and Ambrose.For example neither the Romans nor Augustine had any concept of non-combatant immunity, not until 10th century before this was incorporated.
3Just War Theory Best conceived as cultural consensus Theory rests on Nine PropositionsSeven in the jus ad bellum category; Going to warTwo in the jus in bello category; Prosecuting warSo what are these criteriaThe following is the criteria for Rightness or justice in going to war.
4Just War Criteria: Rightness or Justice in going to War Just CauseCompetent AuthorityComparative JusticeRight IntentionLast ResortProbability of SuccessProportionality of EndsJust Cause: war permissible only for protection and preservation of value, must be a real and present danger to innocent life, conditions of decent life, or securing human lifeCompetent authority: entity declaring war must be the responsible rep of a politically sovereign body, cannot be waged by private groups of individualsComparative justice: Rights and values involved must justify death and destruction of warRight intention: Intent must be in accord with the cause, thus no sides issues, ie Oil or territorial enhancementLast resort: all peaceful alternative must have been attemptedProbability of success: must have rational basis, enormous loss in fact of certain defeat rarely justifiedProportionality of ends: total cost of war must not be greater than the benefits achieved from war
5Just War Criteria: Rightness or Justice in Prosecuting War Proportionately of meansDiscrimination/non-combatant immunityProportionately of means: the means used in waging of war should not be such as to cause unnecessary harmDiscrimination: non-combatants should be protected from direct and intentional harmOver the centuries there has been a shift from the classical theory toward a legal basis for the intitiation, what has cause the shift
6Just War According to Aquinas Those who wage war justly aim at peace!Three criteria need to be met:Authority of the rulerJust causeRightful intention
7Shift Towards Legal Basis Protestant ReformationExpanding International LawWar becoming more DeadlyDe-emphasis of ChivalryGeneral shift from jus ad bellum to jus in belloRise of National SovereigntyProtestant Reformation weakened the unity of peoples based on common religious beliefs.Discovery of the new world led to rethinking and expanding national lawWar becoming more deadly with the spread of firearmsComposition of armies was being transformed from nobility to the lower classes thus with a deemphasis on the laws of chivalry.By the 18th century these factor resulted in limited warfare, limits in goals, methods, and combatantsAfter the bloody Catholic / Protestant war growing consensus that war must not encompass ideological or religious differencesThe shift most effected by the rise of nation-state systems, nationalism , and sovereignty. Necessary because the concept of sovereignty made inherent the right to wage war. Thus until the international community was developed and organized war viewed as private fight between countries.Shift was become more apparent in 20th century
8Legal Basis in 20th Century De-emphasis of Sovereignty; Thinking in terms beyond the nation stateCreation of League of NationsKellogg-Brian Pact of 1928Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg TribunalUnited Nationsthe legal basis for use of force is found in the UN charterSovereignty began to become less powerful, genocides such as the holocaust of WWII which took place within the boundaries of the state with governments turning against its one, people began to rethink their views.Safety and self interest are not guranteed by classic just war thinking, because the interests of nation states can be defined to make any cause seem to be just, at least to the offensive. Thus justify Nazis and Serbs.All of these reason eventually led the international community t create the League of Nations; a serious attempt to restrict the right of nations to resort to force. War now seen as a transgression against the international good. League members the international community would take action to prevent war.Kellogg Briad pact condemned war as solution for international controversies and renounced it as an instrument of policy. However the pact lacked enforcement mechanisms.Nuremberg- defined crimes against peace, was the criminalization of aggression, Leaders held accountable by international community, stripped away sovereignty as justification and cover for crimes against peaceToday; The United Nations is the basis for the legal use of force and guidelines are found in its charter
9Article 2, Section 4“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”What does this mean?
10Article 51“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of the individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”So what does this mean
11United Nations Charter Essentially allows only one cause of war: The cause is self defense in response to aggressionNations can defend themselves and other nations may come to the defense of nations which are the victims of aggressionSee any problems with this?
12Problems with CharterDoes not require armed intervention to halt human right abuses including genocideReluctance to act until the number of victims reaches staggering proportionsSovereignty rights are more important than prevention of genocideStems from lack of sanctions in the international communityThis can be seen in Cambodia, where Pol Pot and the Khemer Rouge slaughtered millions of their own, and the world ignored the situation.Other examples?Charter Article 2 Section 4, in cases above analogous to a father slavishly obeying the speed limit while his child is bleeding to death.Another set of guidelines was founded by Michael Walzer. The shift towards a legal basis is best summarized in his book Just and UnJust wars which is based on international laws, treaties, and the provision of the UN.
13Legalist Paradigm Concept of Michael Walzer in Just and Unjust Wars Based on international laws, treaties, and provisions of UNOnly one reason for fighting; Defense of RightsAll others are ruled outThus preventive wars, commerical wars, war of expansion and conquest, religious crusades, revolutionary wars, military interventions are all barred absolutely.Paradigm based on numerous provision the following are some of the key provisions.
14Key Provision of Paradigm There exists an international society of independent statesThis international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members- above all, the rights of territorial integrityAny use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty of territorial integrity or another constitutes aggression and is a criminal actAggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international societyNothing but aggression can justify warOnce the aggressors state has been repulsed, it can also be punishedThese are the baseline, the model and the fundamental structure for the moral comprehension of war. Can anyone see problems with this paradigm?
15Problems with Legalist Paradigm Only self-defense or mutual defense in response to aggression can justify resort to forceInability to deal with violence initiated by states against their own citizensPrimacy afforded to sovereignty rather than to human rightsFailure to differentiate between combatant and non-combatantInability to deal, reinforce by those who attempt to legtimize terrorism in pursuit of the parochial cuase by making it the moral equivalent of taxing the wealthyFailure to differentiate between combatant and non-comabtant in insurgencies which gives guerrillas an advantage and leads to death of non-combatants, which is a violation of the law of war laid out by Hague and Geneve conventionsA lot of the same problems as UN Charter;Another set of guidelines was put forth part in response to the inadequacy of the Legalist paradigm.
16Weinberger Doctrine Stemmed from: Lessons learned in Vietnam War Sense of paralysis the U.S. felt following the warInadequacy of the legalist paradigmEmergence of the Reagan DoctrineFollowing Vietnam, an intense analysis of the war began. A great deal of the doctrine stems from the failures of VietnamStand against communist and Marxist views
17Criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine Only commit troops if it is deemed vital to our national interests or that of our alliesIf we do send troops, only do so wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning otherwise do no commit them at allIf we do commit troops then we must have clearly defined political and military objectivesRelationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessaryMust have reasonable assurance that the public will support the actionThe commitment of U.S. Forces to combat should be the last resortThese criteria outline an improved doctrine to justify war that has been reinforced in numerous instances since its enunciation? Anyone have examples?
18Doctrine to Intervention Force used to deter terrorist acts in LibyaFall of the Soviet UnionSuccessful intervention in GrenadaAll of these have since reinforced the doctrine in US policy. The change of power in the Soviet Union has redefined threats to the United States and this doctrine provides guidelines to handle such unconventional threats, however it does not come without its problems.
19Problems with Weinberger What are they and who decides them?Flawed ConstitutionallyHard to define, articulate, and legitimizeNot enough forces to deal with a range of potential interestsAlways precarious in democracyMay be much easier and save lives if done earlierAppeal to National InterestsCommit force wholeheartedlyStating Clear ObjectivesRelationship between Objectives and ForcesPublic SupportLast ResortNational interests, intervention to impose democracy is as wrong as intervention to enforce the Brezhnev Doctrine. Rightful exercise is not for anything but against tyranny. Another problem what are they, and who decides. How can we avoid the temptation to find a national interest in every circumstanceWholeheartedly: Constitutional flaw, officers take only one oath, to uphold the constitution, support and defend. The constitution is the ethical reference point for any officer. Appoint President as CIC but gives congress power to make rules that govern the military. Thus the President is subject to these laws, thus congress could in fact impose restrictions and constraints similar to Vietnam and N Korea and it would be binding. The doctrine clearly calls to make this legislation a focus of dissension. This ultimately creates a major constitutional problem in the future.Public support always uncertain because failure to articulate the national interests, best hope for success clear simple goals, few casualites and success in battle however circumstances that faciliate this scenario are not always in tune with vital national interests. Thus the danger of fighting what is feasible instead of what is important.So what does this all mean?
20Meaning of the Doctrine Application of the paradigm is not automatic, thus there is discrimination in its useForestall the use of ForceIntervention leads to a moral calculusGovernments that violate rights and self determination are at intervention riskLegalist Paradigm creates problems;Lacks response to violence by non-state entities, no distinction between combatants and non, and lack of sanction to prevent genocideEvery situation has to be looked at case by case basis, the role of caution is strong. Intervene in Panama but not Soviet Union, public threshold for casualties is not very high. Forestall the use of Force was his purposeIntervention leads to a comparison of consequences from intervention versus consequences from non intervention. Government in this century have slaughtered just as many people that have died in wars. Goverments which violate self determination and rights granted by UN charter are at risk of interventionNow that we have discussed the various doctrines lets apply them to current situations.
21Weinberger and PanamaDoes the Weinberger Doctrine adhere to the invasion of Panama?
22Analysis of PanamaWas the invasion in the national interest of the United States?Four reasons why it was in the best interest:1. Right to conduct rescue missions to protect U.S. militarypersonnel, nationals and installations2. Right of self-determination over Noriega’s governmentclaims of sovereignty3. Asserted legal right to protect its territorial integrityagainst the shipment of narcotics4. Right to enforce provision of the Panama Canal TreatyThe first provision is obviously met
23Where the goals clearly defined both politically and militarily? Was an adequate force used in the invasion and did we go about the operation wholeheartedly?The operation involved 24,000 and the key military objectives were achieved in a matter of hoursWhere the goals clearly defined bothpolitically and militarily?Prior to the invasion, the State Department issued a pressguidance outlining the political goals of the operation. All goalswere met and as previously stated the military goals wereachieved in matter of hours.
24Was in fact the invasion a last resort? Was the relationship between objectives and our forces continually reassessed and was there public support?Both of these criteria were met due to the short duration of the invasion, neither became necessary.Was in fact the invasion a last resort?The invasion was not an early or precipitous one
25Apply to Bosnia National Interests Wholeheartedly Involvement Defined Goals and ObjectivesContinually ReassessedPublic SupportLast Resort
26Critical ThinkingCan Nuclear war ever be justified by any of the doctrines?How about Biological and Chemical Warfare?Terrorism?War over Oil?
27Apply Classic Theory Weinberger Doctrine Just Cause Legalist paradigm Competent AuthorityComparative JusticeRight IntentionLast ResortProbability of SuccessProportionality of EndsProportionately of meansDiscrimination/non-combatant immunityWeinberger DoctrineNational InterestsWholeheartedly InvolvementDefined Goals and ObjectivesContinually ReassessedPublic SupportLast ResortLegalist paradigmIndependent StatesTerritory integrityForce by one state against another act of aggression and is criminalJustifiable by war of self-defense or law enforcementNothing but aggression can justify warOnce the aggressor has been repulsed, it can also be punished
28Conduct of War Ethics for the Military Leader, 2nd edition pagesFundamentals of Naval Leadershippages 25-1 to 25-27, and 27-1 to 27-3Ethics and Moral Reasoning for Military LeadersLesson 21: pages 21-9 to 21-32Case Study: pages 21 to 57