Just War TheoryJust War Theory

Origins of the Just War Origins of the Just War TheoryTheory

Western OriginWestern Origin Developed over timeDeveloped over time Romans affirmed right-authority Romans affirmed right-authority

and proportionalityand proportionality Influenced by ChristianityInfluenced by Christianity Late middle ages before concept is Late middle ages before concept is

completed and incorporatedcompleted and incorporated

Just War TheoryJust War Theory

Best conceived as cultural Best conceived as cultural consensusconsensus

Theory rests on Nine PropositionsTheory rests on Nine Propositions Seven in the Seven in the jus ad bellumjus ad bellum

category; Going to warcategory; Going to war Two in the Two in the jus in bellojus in bello category; category;

Prosecuting warProsecuting war

Just War Criteria:Just War Criteria:Rightness or Justice in going to Rightness or Justice in going to

WarWar

Just CauseJust Cause Competent AuthorityCompetent Authority Comparative JusticeComparative Justice Right IntentionRight Intention Last ResortLast Resort Probability of SuccessProbability of Success Proportionality of EndsProportionality of Ends

Just War Criteria:Just War Criteria:Rightness or Justice in Rightness or Justice in

Prosecuting WarProsecuting War

Proportionately of meansProportionately of means

Discrimination/non-combatant Discrimination/non-combatant immunityimmunity

Just War According to Just War According to AquinasAquinas

Those who wage war justly aim at Those who wage war justly aim at peace!peace!

Three criteria need to be met:Three criteria need to be met:– Authority of the rulerAuthority of the ruler– Just causeJust cause– Rightful intentionRightful intention

Shift Towards Legal BasisShift Towards Legal Basis

Protestant ReformationProtestant Reformation Expanding International LawExpanding International Law War becoming more DeadlyWar becoming more Deadly De-emphasis of ChivalryDe-emphasis of Chivalry General shift from General shift from jus ad bellumjus ad bellum to to

jus in bellojus in bello Rise of National SovereigntyRise of National Sovereignty

Legal Basis in 20th Legal Basis in 20th CenturyCentury

De-emphasis of Sovereignty; Thinking in De-emphasis of Sovereignty; Thinking in terms beyond the nation stateterms beyond the nation state

Creation of League of NationsCreation of League of Nations Kellogg-Brian Pact of 1928Kellogg-Brian Pact of 1928 Article 6 of the Charter of the Article 6 of the Charter of the

Nuremberg TribunalNuremberg Tribunal United Nations United Nations

– the legal basis for use of force is found in the legal basis for use of force is found in the UN charterthe UN charter

Article 2, Section 4Article 2, Section 4

““All members shall refrain in their All members shall refrain in their international relations from the international relations from the

threat or use of force against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political territorial integrity or political

independence of any state, or in independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United with the Purposes of the United

Nations”Nations”

Article 51Article 51

““Nothing in the present Charter shall Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of the impair the inherent right of the

individual or collective self-defense individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken the the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”international peace and security”

United Nations CharterUnited Nations Charter

Essentially allows only one cause Essentially allows only one cause of war: The cause is self defense of war: The cause is self defense in response to aggressionin response to aggression

Nations can defend themselves Nations can defend themselves and other nations may come to the and other nations may come to the defense of nations which are the defense of nations which are the victims of aggressionvictims of aggression

Problems with CharterProblems with Charter Does not require armed intervention to Does not require armed intervention to

halt human right abuses including halt human right abuses including genocidegenocide

Reluctance to act until the number of Reluctance to act until the number of victims reaches staggering proportionsvictims reaches staggering proportions

Sovereignty rights are more important Sovereignty rights are more important than prevention of genocidethan prevention of genocide

Stems from lack of sanctions in the Stems from lack of sanctions in the international communityinternational community

Legalist ParadigmLegalist Paradigm

Concept of Michael Walzer in Concept of Michael Walzer in Just Just and Unjust Warsand Unjust Wars

Based on international laws, treaties, and provisions of UN

Only one reason for fighting; Defense of Rights

All others are ruled out

Key Provision of ParadigmKey Provision of Paradigm There exists an international society of independent statesThere exists an international society of independent states This international society has a law that establishes the rights This international society has a law that establishes the rights

of its members- above all, the rights of territorial integrityof its members- above all, the rights of territorial integrity Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state

against the political sovereignty of territorial integrity or against the political sovereignty of territorial integrity or another constitutes aggression and is a criminal actanother constitutes aggression and is a criminal act

Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international societythe victim and any other member of international society

Nothing but aggression can justify warNothing but aggression can justify war Once the aggressors state has been repulsed, it can also be Once the aggressors state has been repulsed, it can also be

punishedpunished

Problems with Legalist Problems with Legalist ParadigmParadigm

Only self-defense or mutual defense in Only self-defense or mutual defense in response to aggression can justify response to aggression can justify resort to forceresort to force

Inability to deal with violence initiated Inability to deal with violence initiated by states against their own citizensby states against their own citizens

Primacy afforded to sovereignty rather Primacy afforded to sovereignty rather than to human rightsthan to human rights

Failure to differentiate between Failure to differentiate between combatant and non-combatantcombatant and non-combatant

Weinberger DoctrineWeinberger Doctrine

Stemmed from:Stemmed from:– Lessons learned in Vietnam WarLessons learned in Vietnam War– Sense of paralysis the U.S. felt Sense of paralysis the U.S. felt

following the warfollowing the war– Inadequacy of the legalist paradigmInadequacy of the legalist paradigm– Emergence of the Reagan DoctrineEmergence of the Reagan Doctrine

Criteria of the Weinberger Criteria of the Weinberger DoctrineDoctrine

Only commit troops if it is deemed vital to our national Only commit troops if it is deemed vital to our national interests or that of our alliesinterests or that of our allies

If we do send troops, only do so wholeheartedly and with the If we do send troops, only do so wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning otherwise do no commit them at allclear intention of winning otherwise do no commit them at all

If we do commit troops then we must have clearly defined If we do commit troops then we must have clearly defined political and military objectives political and military objectives

Relationship between our objectives and the forces we have Relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed must be continually reassessed and adjusted if committed must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessarynecessary

Must have reasonable assurance that the public will support Must have reasonable assurance that the public will support the actionthe action

The commitment of U.S. Forces to combat should be the last The commitment of U.S. Forces to combat should be the last resortresort

Doctrine to InterventionDoctrine to Intervention

Force used to deter terrorist acts in Force used to deter terrorist acts in LibyaLibya

Fall of the Soviet UnionFall of the Soviet Union

Successful intervention in GrenadaSuccessful intervention in Grenada

Problems with WeinbergerProblems with Weinberger Appeal to National InterestsAppeal to National Interests

Commit force wholeheartedlyCommit force wholeheartedly

Stating Clear ObjectivesStating Clear Objectives

Relationship between Objectives Relationship between Objectives and Forcesand Forces

Public SupportPublic Support

Last ResortLast Resort

What are they and who decides What are they and who decides them?them?

Flawed ConstitutionallyFlawed Constitutionally

Hard to define, articulate, and Hard to define, articulate, and legitimizelegitimize

Not enough forces to deal with a Not enough forces to deal with a range of potential interestsrange of potential interests

Always precarious in democracyAlways precarious in democracy

May be much easier and save May be much easier and save lives if done earlierlives if done earlier

Meaning of the DoctrineMeaning of the Doctrine Application of the paradigm is not automatic, thus Application of the paradigm is not automatic, thus

there is discrimination in its usethere is discrimination in its use– Forestall the use of ForceForestall the use of Force

Intervention leads to a moral calculusIntervention leads to a moral calculus– Governments that violate rights and self determination Governments that violate rights and self determination

are at intervention riskare at intervention risk

Legalist Paradigm creates problems;Legalist Paradigm creates problems;– Lacks response to violence by non-state entities, no Lacks response to violence by non-state entities, no

distinction between combatants and non, and lack of distinction between combatants and non, and lack of sanction to prevent genocidesanction to prevent genocide

Weinberger and PanamaWeinberger and Panama

Does the Weinberger Doctrine Does the Weinberger Doctrine adhere to the invasion of Panama?adhere to the invasion of Panama?

Analysis of PanamaAnalysis of Panama Was the invasion in the national Was the invasion in the national

interest of the United States?interest of the United States?

Four reasons why it was in the best interest:1. Right to conduct rescue missions to protect U.S. military personnel, nationals and installations2. Right of self-determination over Noriega’s government claims of sovereignty3. Asserted legal right to protect its territorial integrity against the shipment of narcotics4. Right to enforce provision of the Panama Canal Treaty

Was an adequate force used in the Was an adequate force used in the invasion and did we go about the invasion and did we go about the

operation wholeheartedly?operation wholeheartedly? The operation involved 24,000 and the key military The operation involved 24,000 and the key military

objectives were achieved in a matter of hoursobjectives were achieved in a matter of hours

Where the goals clearly defined both politically and militarily?

Prior to the invasion, the State Department issued a press guidance outlining the political goals of the operation. All goals

were met and as previously stated the military goals wereachieved in matter of hours.

Was the relationship between Was the relationship between objectives and our forces continually objectives and our forces continually

reassessedreassessedand was there public support?and was there public support?

Both of these criteria were met due to the Both of these criteria were met due to the short duration of the invasion, neither became short duration of the invasion, neither became necessary.necessary.

Was in fact the invasion a last resort?

The invasion was not an early or precipitous one

Apply to BosniaApply to Bosnia

National InterestsNational Interests Wholeheartedly InvolvementWholeheartedly Involvement Defined Goals and ObjectivesDefined Goals and Objectives Continually ReassessedContinually Reassessed Public SupportPublic Support Last ResortLast Resort

Critical ThinkingCritical Thinking

Can Nuclear war ever be justified Can Nuclear war ever be justified by any of the doctrines?by any of the doctrines?

How about Biological and Chemical How about Biological and Chemical Warfare?Warfare?

Terrorism?Terrorism? War over Oil?War over Oil?

ApplyApplyClassic TheoryClassic Theory

Just CauseJust Cause Competent AuthorityCompetent Authority Comparative JusticeComparative Justice Right IntentionRight Intention Last ResortLast Resort Probability of SuccessProbability of Success Proportionality of EndsProportionality of Ends Proportionately of Proportionately of

meansmeans Discrimination/non-Discrimination/non-

combatant immunitycombatant immunity

Weinberger DoctrineWeinberger Doctrine National InterestsNational Interests Wholeheartedly Wholeheartedly

InvolvementInvolvement Defined Goals and Defined Goals and

ObjectivesObjectives Continually Continually

ReassessedReassessed Public SupportPublic Support Last ResortLast Resort

Legalist paradigm Independent States Territory integrity Force 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

Conduct of War Conduct of War

Ethics for the Military Leader, 2nd edition

pages 411-472

Fundamentals of Naval Leadership

pages 25-1 to 25-27, and 27-1 to 27-3

Ethics and Moral Reasoning for Military Leaders

Lesson 21: pages 21-9 to 21-32

Case Study: pages 21 to 57