POL208Y1 Lecture Notes - Jus Ad Bellum, Post Bellum, J. Walter Thompson
This preview shows page 1. to view the full 4 pages of the document.
JUST WAR THEORY
•Mihael Walzer--compromise between paciﬁsm and machiavellian approach
•some say war is a necessary evil
•some say all war should be a crime
!Waltzer says lets ﬁnd a balance
!When is war just? how can it be carried out in an ethical manner?
•some criticize just war theory bc it gives us "illusion" that we can ﬁght a just
war-have less guilt about war-legitimizes war
•walzer relies on bible, thomas aquinas, hug grotius--all struggle with
balance of natural side of war and control of it
•wars a judeged by 2 things:
!why did we go to war? is it justiﬁable?
!how did we ﬁght the war? were the means justiﬁable?
•So: JWT divides war into 3 parts
!jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus pot bellum
•ad bellum-why are we going to war
•in bollo-justic IN WAR-what are we doing
•post bello-what happens AFTER war? how do we deal with war prisoners/
criminals/destruction--->less developed than other 2
•Jus Ad Bellum-relies on these principles
!a just war should have a just cause (UN charter: self-defense)-BUT
what counts as self defense, what about prevention?-in defense of a
future attack, what about it our ally is being attacked? is that cause for
!Last Resort: how do we know that we've reached last resort? when do
we give up on negotiiations?
!Declared publicly by a legitimate authority (no longer as important as
in past)--what is a legitimate authority? only just states can ﬁght a just
war--since the non legitimate ones dont have a monopoly over the
use of force
!Proportionality-beneﬁt that we think we'll get from the war should
outweigh the harm from the war
!the war is iwnnable-ﬁghting a war that we cannot win is unjust
!--->these conditions protect status quo actors
•Jus In Bellum-status is war
!Hague treaties-early attempts to codify existing norms as laws of war
!treaty of Geneva (1949)-after horrors of WW2, need to redeﬁne our
codes of war
!2 main principles
!Discrimination-refers to discriminating between civilians and
ﬁghters-protect civilians and targets those participating in the
ﬁghting-example-nuclar weapons cannot discriminate so are
nucear weapons unjust? what about the threat of using them?
what about aerial bombing? can we disciminate? what about
the ethics of terrorism and counterterrorism?
!Proportionality-speciﬁc goal in targeting speciﬁc area (building
You're Reading a Preview
Unlock to view full version