POL208Y1 Lecture Notes - Jus Ad Bellum, Post Bellum, J. Walter Thompson

41 views4 pages
School
Course
Professor
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
self defense?
!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
ghters-protect civilians and targets those participating in the
ghting-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
www.notesolution.com
Unlock document

This preview shows page 1 of the document.
Unlock all 4 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

Grade+
$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers