Reading for Today: Just War Theory (JWT) & the Ethics of War

1. Reading for Today: Just War Theory (JWT) & the Ethics of War • Objectives from reading: • Know the origin and conditions required of the state via Just War Theory • To go to war • To conduct the war • To end the war • Know the foundation of the Legalist Paradigm and the Theory of Aggression. • Identify similarities and differences among classic JWT and the Legalist Paradigm • Know the tenets of the Weinberger Doctrine • Comprehend the challenges modern day terror and humanitarian threats pose for these theories. • EMP (16 pages) • The Moral Role of the Military Professional in International Relations (Lucas), pp. 221-223; The Justification of Going to War (Lucas), pp. 225-229; Is It Always Sinful to Wage War? (St. Thomas Aquinas), p. 231; Law and Order in International Society (Walzer), pp. 233-239.

2. Just War Questions • Why do we need to justify war? • Because people will die • Because we need to use our forces properly • To whom do we need to justify war? • American people • International community • Ourselves • Our troops • How do we justify war – by what criteria? • Does the character & conduct of war in the 21st Century change how we justify war?

3. WORLD RELIGION VIEW • “Thou shalt not kill/murder.”--- Judaism: The Torah: Exodus 20: 13. • “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” --- Christianity: New Testament: Matthew 5: 9. • “God does not love aggressors” --- Islam: Qur’an 2: 190 • “God loves those who are just.”--- Islam: Qur’an 60: 8

4. Realpolitik Politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions. • “War must never be seen as a purpose to itself, but as a means of physically forcing one's will on an opponent… • (War is the continuation of politics through other means).” • - Carl Von Clauzewitz -Vom Kriege (“On War”) Addresses the practicality, but not the morality of war

5. PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES J W T (War is morally justifiable under certain conditions, despite its potentially coercive and destructive nature) Pacifism (War is never morally justified) Bellicism (War is always justifiable when used to advance national interests)

6. Jus ad Bellum Jus in Bello Jus Post Bellum Just Cause the conditions under which war or the use of force may be justified Just Conduct ethical conduct in war, once war has been initiated Just Peace the termination of war and its armistice agreements. Just War Terms

7. St. Thomas Aquinas: When is it permissible to use force? Natural Law offers three basic criteria: • Declared by a legitimate authority • Just cause • Right intention • to do good • restoring peace, • to avoid evil, • deliberate killing of non-combatants 1225-1274 AD Classical Just War Tradition

8. Four Additional Qualifications(Modern Just War Theory) • War is a last resort; exhaust all other options • Likelihood of success • Proportionality of ends • “the value of the benefits sought or the harms redressed must be proportional to the sacrifice and damage to be incurred” • Just means • a just end pursued via an unjust means loses its moral force • (CWO Hugh Thompson at My Lai) “Honor on the Battlefield”

9. Two Modes of Discourse • Note that Aquinas’ so-called “classical Just War Tradition” (JWT; not a “theory”) has its roots in Plato, Cicero, St. AugustineSustained philosophical reflection about the necessary conditions on the use of lethal force • A second, very distinct “legalist tradition” arises in the 16th-17th Centuries 427-347 BC 106-43BC 355-430 AD

10. The Legalist Tradition • Francisco di Vitoria’s De Juri Belli (1539) • Only reason to go to war is when harm has been inflicted • No wars for religious conversion • No targeting civilians • No killing enemy prisoners • Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), 1625 • Pens the “locus classicus” or standard classic work on JWT • Kant, “To Perpetual Peace,” (1795) • Proposes a list of treaty-like principles to restrict conflict among states, e.g., • “standing armies shall be gradually abolished” (#3) • “no nation shall forcibly interfere with the constitution and government of another” (#5)

11. International Law & the “Legalist Paradigm” • Reformation Wars & Peace of Westphalia (1648) • “Just War” doctrine permits too much • The “Domestic Analogy:” • Nation-states as “individuals” with rights of Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity (cf. J.S. Mill “On Liberty”) • Wars of Self Defense against aggression • Wars of Law Enforcement • (Collective Security)

12. Baseline Model: Legalist ParadigmWalzer identifies 6 propositions on “Theory of Aggression” • International society of independent states • International law protects • territorial integrity • political sovereignty • Aggression/use of force = criminal act • Nothing but Aggression can justify war • Aggression justifies two responses: • self defense and • law enforcement (allies) • Aggressor states may be repulsed and punished NOTE: very sharp limitation on use of military;

13. JUS AD BELLUM or Justice of War } • *Just or Legitimate Authority • *Just Cause • *Right Intention • Reasonable hope of success • Proportionate • Just goals or ends of war - via just means • Waged as a last resort • (Formal Declaration) Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274 AD Conditions under which ‘just war’ is conducted

14. Jus Ad Bellum: The Justice of WarJUST (Legitimate) AUTHORITY Just war may only be waged by LEGITIMATE authority. In past eras: Kings; Emperors; Sultans etc… In present era: Presidents; Prime Ministers; etc…These possessed the MORAL and LEGAL authority to wage war. It did not recognize the right of INDIVIDUALS, WARLORDS, STRONGMEN, MADMEN… to declare war. In the present and future eras: International Organizations

15. Jus Ad Bellum: The Justice of WarJUST CAUSE Just Cause for war has been traditionally interpreted to be war conducted out of self-defense or in defense of a victimized nation. Some contemporary theorists have tried to narrow JUST CAUSE to merely defensive actions taken to address aggression, but traditionally, just causes have included: • Defense against attack; • Reclamation of something (like territory) unjustly seized; • The defense of peace; violation of rights; • To address or redress evil or aggression. Causes which have never been considered just: • Wars for national gain or glory; • Wars fought for territorial expansion; • Wars fought to avenge past wrongs. What’s in a name? Our Dec 1989 invasion of Panama to oust Manuel Noriega was called “Operation Just Cause”

16. Jus Ad Bellum: The Justice of WarJust Intention Just wars are waged with the right intention. For Augustine, wars fought with a focus on the love of both neighbor and enemy are just: • to establish good order or correct an unjust order; • with the intent that good will resultfrom the use of potentially deadly force; • to secure a just and lasting peace for all. St Augustine of Hippo 354-430 AD “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” ---Augustine

17. Jus Ad Bellum: The Justice of WarREASONABLE HOPE OF SUCCESS (Potentiality). However right the cause, or strong the courage and resolve of the people, just war theorists consider itimmoral to declare a war that risks the lives of combatants and non-combatants, and a society’s infrastructure, if there is no reasonable chance for success. Potentiality dictates that lives should not be sacrificed for futile or unrealistic causes.

18. Jus Ad Bellum: The Justice of WarProportionality The good to be achieved by war… (or the values and goods to be protected or recovered by the use of deadly force) …must be sufficiently important to OUTWEIGH thedeath, injury, and destruction to be caused by war. Proportionality received a lot of intention after the invention of Weapons of Mass Destruction. • Some theorists argued that the destruction caused by nuclear weapons could never be proportionate to the good to be accomplished. GOOD TO BE ACHIEVED versus THE HARM TO BE DONE

19. Jus Ad Bellum: The Justice of WarJust Goals via Just Means • The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. • The peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. • Tactics and weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. • Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. Cpl Zach Bitner, a combat engineer with Charlie Company, Combat Service Support Battalion 7, sets up voting facility in Baghdadi, Iraq, Jan. 27, 2005 to elect the new National Assembly – legislative members who would draft the new Iraqi Consitituion.

20. Jus Ad Bellum: The Justice of WarLast Resort Some believe that a war can only be just if it is waged as a last resort. For them, war should not be waged if there is reasonable hope that non-violent means can be used to resolve the conflict • Diplomacy, negotiation, & compromise • Economic sanctions • other statecraft including international persuasion, etc… Last Resort is a reminder that war is never entered into lightly; just cause is not just license to use force. --- ALL NON-VIOLENT MEANS HAVE BEEN TRIED

21. Jus Ad Bellum: The Justice of WarFormal Declaration Some hold to the belief that war must be declared to be just. While some question if this criterion is valid, there is a useful dimension to this category since it forces belligerents to clearly state • their just cause, • their intentions and goals, • and the conditions under which the conflict may be terminated. This criterion allows for three dynamics in regards to war: • indicates to potential belligerentshow war might be avoided because declaration outlines the grievances; • Affords other nations the opportunity to assess whether a cause is just or not - and thus act accordingly; • It dictates the will of the people to engage in the conflict. The United States has not issued a formal declaration of war since WWII De Facto declarations? e.g. “Joint Resolution 114 Oct 2002” `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'. Senate 77-23 For vs Against House 296-133 For vs Against --- Presumption: declared wars are more defined

22. Weinberger Doctrine • Commit forces only in vital national interests • Commit forces wholeheartedly with intent to win • Have clearly defined political/military objectives • Relationship between objective and resources must be appropriate and reassessed • Need full support of American people • Must be a last resort

23. Jus Post Bellum = Justice After War • Healing Mindset/Conduct • Just Surrender; Just/Humble Conduct • Just Restoration • Protector-ship; Partner-ship; Owner-ship • Safeguarding the Innocent • Respect for the Environment • Post Bellum Justice • Warrior Transition • Learning the Lessons of War Gen MacArthur and American forces in Post-war Japan drafted a new constitution which is still in effect today. Conditions under which ‘just war’ is terminated

24. Low Intensity Conflict Military Operations Other Than War Limited War Just War Theory in 2012… Peace Keeping Pre-emption Counter-terrorism Collective Security Humanitarian Intervention Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is launched from the guided missile cruiser USS Anzio.

25. Two types of anticipatory wars… • Preemptive: “War waged in the face of imminent act of aggression (typically measured in days, weeks or months).” • Preventive: “war waged to eliminate or mitigate potential or hypothetical threats in the more distant future (for example, destroying nuclear reactors in another country that could be used to create nuclear weapons).” • Preemptive wars have a long history (Aquinas, Grotius) and standing in international law/JWT, while preventive wars (until recently) have long been considered merely as wars of aggression. Source: Who Would Jesus Kill? By Mark J. Allman, 2008

26. Jus ad Pacem: The justice of “peace”The Reluctant Interventionist – G. Lucas • Under what conditions do we engage in pre-emptive counter-terrorist or humanitarian intervention? • “The Reluctant Interventionist” • “Interventionist imperative:” • “When a clearly recognizable injustice is in progress, and when we as international bystanders are in a position to intervene to prevent it, then it follows that we have a prima facie duty to intervene.” • Essential features: • Objectives are by definition unclear, • Mission, success, and “exit strategy” are invariably poorly defined

27. What was our justification for pursuing the war? What were the arguments against pursing the war? War in Iraq in 2003…

28. September 2002 Perspective • Containment has failed • Deterrence will not work against a Saddam Hussein with WMD. • International inspectors cannot insure that Iraq will not obtain WMD • Finally enforcing 10 years worth of serious and flagrant violations of UN sanctions/demands • Gross documented instances of attempted genocide (Kurds) and humanitarian rights violations • Iraq is providing support for Al Qaeda and is a center for anti-American terrorism. • The Iraqi people will be better off • The patience of our Middle East allies is wearing thin "America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago."--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02

29. Opposition's View (with benefit of hindsight) • Questionable whether Saddam was initially supporting Al Qaeda • Legality of removing Saddam • Evidence of WMD looks contrived • Lack of a UN mandate • US acted unilaterally (mostly) • Are the Iraqi people better off after 7 years? • Actually destabilized the region • Distraction from the War on Terrorism Note: Your arguments - both for and against the war - reflect concepts addressed in Just War Theory…

30. The Dilemma of Preemption • President Bush’s “West Point Commencement Address” (1 June 2002) • Cold War strategies are obsolete • Conventional deterrence & Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) strategies don’t work against terrorists or non-state actors • Must be prepared to undertake “preemptive action” against potential adversaries to protect lives &liberties New security strategy reaffirms Bush's pre-emptive strike policy By Bill Nichols and Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Undeterred by an erosion of public support for the war in Iraq, President Bush on Thursday reaffirmed his first-strike policy against terrorists and rogue nations and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge to U.S. security. 3/16/2006 10:13 PM

31. RELEVANCE OF JWT • Helps guard against unjust conflict in the world; • Offers moral guidance to those who fight; • Directs that the goals of conflict remain those of establishing a just and lasting peace; • Helps warriors retain their humanity in one of our most inhumane activities: war. War is a deadly game; civilized peoples seek restraints.