POL208Y1 – Lecture #7 international crisis
Just War Theory; compromise between Machiavellian view to a more passivist
view that views war as evil.
Just Ad Bellum
Jus in Bello
Just Post Bellum
5 conditions for Just Ad Bellum
o Just cause – self defense (UN Charter)
o Once we start breaking down the concept it becomes less clear.
o Last resort, every other thing short of war before we can justify it.
o Declared publicly by a legitimate authority.
o Proportionality – benefit outweighs harm
o The war is winnable
If the war qualifies for all conditions, its is a just war.
Just in Bello
o Hague (1899, 1907); Geneva (1949), trying to regulate and limit the
actions that would be damaging during war.
o Discrimination – protecting civilians (Geneva; nuclear weapons?
(deterrence) aerial bombing („smart bombs‟)? Terrorism)
o International law trying to create incentives to wear unifroms because it
allows us to protect civilians.
o Proportionality – double effect (Agent Orange). Not about the balance of
casualties, not counting casualties, recognizes that to almost every act we
engage in war, if we‟re trying to bomb the headquarters of the enemy,
attack has two effects, one that we intended and the one that we did not
intend and that is killing civilians. The one that we intended and the one
that we did not intend, this is where the proportionality comes. Needs to
outweigh potential benefits, double effect. Balancing the good and the bad
that happens when we engage in war.
o Clear strategic reason behind it, we start seeing problems with the douhle
effect. Difficult to justify the good that agent orange provided because of
its destruction and environmental damage.
o Type of weaponry
Jus Post Bellum
o Nurembergs; Milosevic; Rwanda (Gacaca, ICTR); ICC; Saddam
o The „justice‟ of the winners?
o Post war responsibilities – you broke it, you own it.
o Treatment of occupied territory and population
o Just occupation? (humanitarian interventions).
o Can an unjust war lead to a just post-bellum? Can a just war lead to an
Does it matter? Realists: at best what we see is organized hypocrisy, want to be seen as an ethical
way of fighting war.
However: decision makesr and generals use the language of Just War Theory;
Certain strategies of war are less acceptable today; Indication of changing norms?
Changing technology? Does it affect policy?
“the illegal we do immediately. The longer unconstitutional takes a little longer”
New rules for the war on terror?
Why study Int‟l Cris