Kinds of conflicts and crises that cause war.
Just War Theory: Michael Walzer. Compromise between pacifism and a Machiavellian
approach. War is a recurring evil- but its destructiveness can and should be constrained.
Critique: it legitimizes war and provides it with a •ehumane•f facade. Bible; Thomas
Aquinas (1225-1274); Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). •gWar is always judged twice, first with
reference to the reasons states have for fighting, secondly with reference to the means
they adopt•h (Walzer). Jus Ad Bellum (justice in the decisions to go to war), Just in Bello
(justice in war), Just Post Bellum (more recent approach, justice post war). The core of
these theory addresses reasons why states can go to war or should and secondly what
they can do once they•fre involved in a conflict.
Jus Ad Bellum: demand that before states go to war they have just cause - self
defense (UN Charter). Endorses the decision to engage in war only for defense
and as a last resort. Declared publicly by a legitimate authority. Any war that•fs
not for defense it•fs an aggressive war and that•fs the highest intl crime according
to the UN Charter. It has proportionality - benefits outweigh harm. The war is
winnable. States generally are considered to be acting legitimately if they engage
in preemptive war (if a neighbour state is preparing to invade you or attack you,
you don•ft have to wait for the first attack, and it goes with the parameters of Just
War). George W. Bush took the idea of Iraq War by a preventive war. How real
must the war be? In the case of Iraq it was evident that there was a threat, and it•fs
working to achieve capacity to attack the U.S. How far in the future are you able
to look whether a country can be a threat and therefore take preventive action?
Preventive is very problematic. War must be declared only by legitimate
authorities; if its declared by a sub-state actor it•fs difficult how to act. Legitimate
actors are required for the process.
ESSAY QUESTION POSSIBLE 2
There•fs also the idea of proportionality. War is a momentous decision and it
should not be taken lightly. It shouldn•ft be launched on the basis of trivial conflict
or disagreements. It should bring more benefits than harm. War is engaged to
reestablish peace; create stability => it is winnable.
Jus in Bello: Hague (1899, 1907); Geneva (1949). Discrimination: protecting
civilians (Geneva; nuclear weapons? (deterrence) aerial bombing (•esmart
bombs•f)? Terrorism) Distinguish combatants from non-combatants and targeting
the latter is a war crime. The idea of going after combatants surrounded by
civilians is illegitimate. Kind of weapons? The main purpose of nuclear weapons
is a deterrent to other states. They are designed as weapons that are not meant to
be use, but just to frighten people. The very notion of deterrence has to depend
on the perception of who•fs being deterred is that the country will use them is
passed a certain point. Are they actually planned to use them? They have tactical
and battlefield nuclear weapons, which are intended to use in conflict. It blurs the
line of the legitimacy of nuclear weapons. The notion of aerial bombing is also
important. It was off the table because the victorious parties on the Second World
War, and what to do with the nazis and everyone who was defeated. The USSR
said they need to shoot the top 10k officials. The idea of bombarding violates the
idea of discrimination. Smart bombs were featured in the First Gulf War. They
target just one specific thing, they are controlled after they are dropped and
guided. There•fs also terrorism, which targets civilians, it raises different issues
than in interstate conflict.
Proportionality: double effect (Agent Orange). The use of violence in war has to