Presentation on theme: "“War Theories” Training Session 2 May 2014"— Presentation transcript:
1“War Theories” Training Session 2 May 2014 The core, and controversial, proposition of just war theory is that, sometimes, states can have moral justification for resorting to armed force. War is sometimes, but of course not all the time, morally right. The idea here is not that the war in question is merely politically shrewd, or prudent, or bold and daring, but fully moral, just. It is an ethically appropriate use of mass political violence.Realism, by contrast, sports a profound skepticism about the application of moral concepts, such as justice, to the key problems of foreign policy. Power and national security, realists claim, motivate states during wartime and thus moral appeals are strictly wishful thinking. Talk of the morality of warfare is pure bunk: ethics has got nothing to do with the rough-and-tumble world of global politics, where only the strong and cunning survive. A country should tend to its vital interests in security, influence over others, and economic growth—and not to moral ideals.Pacifism does not share realism's moral skepticism. For the pacifist, moral concepts can indeed be applied fruitfully to international affairs. It does make sense to ask whether a war is just: that is an important and meaningful issue. But the result of such normative application, in the case of war, is always that war should not be undertaken. Where just war theory is sometimes permissive with regard to war, pacifism isalways prohibitive. For the pacifist, war is always wrong; there's always some better resolution to the problem than fighting.Training Session 2 May 2014
2Just War Theory (i) “Jus ad bellum” - Right to go to War 1. Just Cause 2. Last Resort3. Declared by Legitimate Authority4. Right Intention5. Reasonable Chance of Success6. End Proportional to MeansJust Cause: Commonly agree responding to acts of open aggression. But how draw the line? Invasion – Insult – Trade Embargo? Reactive or Pre-emptive? RP2P. Greater effect vs conjecture? Slippery Slope?Self-defence from external attack; the defence of others from such; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; and punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected. Just war in terms of self-defence or in defence of another.Int. Law (Roth)– legit gov (should be left in peace)(i)Recognised as legit by own people and int. community; (ii)State avoids violating rights of other legit states (iii)states makes every reasonable effort to satisfy HR of its people.Last resort: Should they try all other options first?Right Intention; oil etc. Justifiable, resentment etc?
3Just War Theory (ii) “Jus in bello” – Right conduct within War DiscriminationWho are legitimate targets of war?ProportionalityHow much force is appropriate?ResponsibilityMaintaining responsibility amongst soldiersWhy are soldiers legitimate targets? Volunteerism. Threat to invader. Soldiers at home? In Civilian gear? Civilians who shelter fighters? Human shields, willing or not? Collective Responsibility for actions of government? Financiers of war?Proportionality – Avoid escalation; Minimise necessary suffering. Probably a good thing that India/Pakistan conflict does not escalate every time there is a dispute. Is Israel's’ response to Rocket attacks proportional?What is proportional?Where does assassination sit here? Aim: discourage retaliatory tit for tat and escalation.
4Just War Theory (iii) “Jus post bellum” Compensation Rehabilitation PunishmentRebuilding in IraqResentment left in Germany after WWIWhy are these things important?Punishment – what is the best way of doing these things?JWT – says we should hold anyone who commits atrocities responsible from both sides (this often does not happen under SQ). See US protecting people who enacted torture.
5RealismMoral concepts should not be employed neither as descriptions of, nor as prescriptions for, state behaviour on the int. scene.War ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest; and that, once war has begun, a state ought to do whatever it can to win.Descriptive realism = States do not (for reasons of motivation) and cannot (for reasons of competitive struggle) behave morallyPrescriptive realism = States ought to behave amorally in the int. arenathe reason why a prescriptive realist might endorse such rules would be very different from the reasons offered by the just war theorist: the latter would talk about abiding moral values whereas the former would refer to useful rules which help establish expectations of behaviour, solve coordination problems and to which prudent bargainers would consent.
6Pacifism Jenny Teichman: “anti-war-ism” Two kinds to consider: (1) A more consequentialist form of pacifism which maintains that the benefits accruing from war can never outweigh the costs of fighting it;And (2) a more deontological form of pacifism which contends that the very activity of war is intrinsically wrong, since it violates foremost duties of justice, such as not killing human beings.A pacifist objects to killing in general and, in particular, objects to the mass killing, for political reasons, which is part and parcel of the wartime experience. So, a pacifist rejects war; they believe that there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. Objection 1: Not realistic/possibleObjection 2: Failing to resist int. aggression with effective means, ends up rewarding aggression and failing to protect those who need it.Response 2: We do not need to resort to war to do these things. Diplomacy and sanctions equally/more effectiveWhat are the alt.? Why might they be better (even if they haven’t worked so far)?
7Consequentialism “The ends justify the means” It does not matter what actions we take in terms of their morality as long as they have the consequences we want.
8Debating about Invasions / Assassinations etc PROPOPPEstablish ImperativeIdentify a tipping point (why we can’t wait)Last Resort (all other options have been tried)Provide clear mechanismOutline a military strategy that will workInitial conflictContinuing conflict (insurgency?)Include amnesty option for combatants / suggest won’t fightShow path to a better futureReconstruction efforts?Who will take power afterwards?Creates important positive precedentsThrow mess aroundWar is never clean or simpleCivilians & Soldiers will dieResponsibility on our handsShow how will mobilise oppositionEVEN IF invasion worksShow most likely scenario will be at best sub-optimal and most likely even worse than to startUndermines precedents of international lawTHB political assassinations are a legitimate tool of foreign policy