Just War

In an age of terrorism, guerilla and total warfareHaving just cause (especially and, according to the
the medieval doctrine of Just War needs to beUnited Nations Charter, exclusively, self-defense);
re-defined. Moreover, issues of legitimacy, efficacyBeing (formally) declared by a proper authority;
and morality should not be confused. Legitimacy isPossessing a right intention;
conferred by institutions. Not all morally justifiedHaving a reasonable chance of success;
wars are, therefore, automatically legitimate.The end being proportional to the means used."
Frequently the efficient execution of a battle planYet, the evolution of warfare - the invention of
involves immoral or even illegal acts.nuclear weapons, the propagation of total war,
As international law evolves beyond the ancientthe ubiquity of guerrilla and national liberation
percepts of sovereignty, it should incorporate newmovements, the emergence of global,
thinking about pre-emptive strikes, human rightsborder-hopping terrorist organizations, of
violations as casus belli and the role and standingtotalitarian regimes, and rogue or failed states -
of international organizations, insurgents andrequires these principles to be modified by adding
liberation movements.these tenets:
Yet, inevitably, what constitutes "justice" dependsThat the declaring authority is a lawfully and
heavily on the cultural and societal contexts,democratically elected government.
narratives, mores, and values of the disputants.That the declaration of war reflects the popular
Thus, one cannot answer the deceivingly simplewill.
question: "Is this war a just war?" - without first(Extension of 3) The right intention is to act in
asking: "According to whom? In which context?just cause.
By which criteria? Based on what values? In which(Extension of 4) ... or a reasonable chance of
period in history and where?"avoiding an annihilating defeat.
Being members of Western Civilization, whether(Extension of 5) That the outcomes of war are
by choice or by default, our understanding ofpreferable to the outcomes of the preservation
what constitutes a just war is crucially founded onof peace.
our shifting perceptions of the West.Still, the doctrine of just war, conceived in Europe
Imagine a village of 220 inhabitants. It has onein eras past, is fraying at the edges. Rights and
heavily armed police constable flanked by twocorresponding duties are ill-defined or mismatched.
lightly equipped assistants. The hamlet is beset byWhat is legal is not always moral and what is
a bunch of ruffians who molest their own familieslegitimate is not invariably legal. Political realism and
and, at times, violently lash out at their neighbors.quasi-religious idealism sit uncomfortably within the
These delinquents mock the authorities and ignoresame conceptual framework. Norms are vague
their decisions and decrees.and debatable while customary law is only partially
Yet, the village council - the source of legitimacy -subsumed in the tradition (i.e., in treaties,
refuses to authorize the constable to apprehendconventions and other instruments, as well in the
the villains and dispose of them, by force of armsactual conduct of states).
if need be. The elders see no imminent or presentThe most contentious issue is, of course, what
danger to their charges and are afraid of potentialconstitutes "just cause". Self-defense, in its
escalation whose evil outcomes could farnarrowest sense (reaction to direct and
outweigh anything the felons can achieve.overwhelming armed aggression), is a justified
Incensed by this laxity, the constable - backedcasus belli. But what about the use of force to
only by some of the inhabitants - breaks into the(deontologically, consequentially, or ethically):
home of one of the more egregious thugs andPrevent or ameliorate a slow-motion or
expels or kills him. He claims to have actedpermanent humanitarian crisis;
preemptively and in self-defense, as the criminal,Preempt a clear and present danger of aggression
long in defiance of the law, was planning to attack("anticipatory or preemptive self-defense" against
its representatives.what Grotius called "immediate danger");
Was the constable right in acting the way he did?Secure a safe environment for urgent and
On the one hand, he may have saved lives andindispensable humanitarian relief operations;
prevented a conflagration whose consequencesRestore democracy in the attacked state
no one could predict. On the other hand, by("regime change");
ignoring the edicts of the village council and theRestore public order in the attacked state;
expressed will of many of the denizens, he hasPrevent human rights violations or crimes against
placed himself above the law, as its absolutehumanity or violations of international law by the
interpreter and enforcer.attacked state;
What is the greater danger? Turning a blind eyeKeep the peace ("peacekeeping operations") and
to the exploits of outlaws and outcasts, thusenforce compliance with international or bilateral
rendering them ever more daring and insolent - ortreaties between the aggressor and the attacked
acting unilaterally to counter such pariahs, thusstate or the attacked state and a third party;
undermining the communal legal foundation and,Suppress armed infiltration, indirect aggression, or
possibly, leading to a chaotic situation of "might iscivil strife aided and abetted by the attacked
right"? In other words, when ethics andstate;
expedience conflict with legality - which shouldHonor one's obligations to frameworks and
prevail?treaties of collective self-defense;
Enter the medieval doctrine of "Just War" (justumProtect one's citizens or the citizens of a third
bellum, or, more precisely jus ad bellum),party inside the attacked state;
propounded by Saint Augustine of Hippo (fifthProtect one's property or assets owned by a
century AD), Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)third party inside the attacked state;
in his "Summa Theologicae", Francisco de VitoriaRespond to an invitation by the authorities of the
(1548-1617), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugoattacked state - and with their expressed
Grotius (1583-1645) in his influential tome "Jure Belliconsent - to militarily intervene within the territory
ac Pacis" ("On Rights of War and Peace", 1625),of the attacked state;
Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian WolffReact to offenses against the nation's honor or its
(1679-1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767).economy.
Modern thinkers include Michael Walzer in "Just andUnless these issues are resolved and codified, the
Unjust Wars" (1977), Barrie Paskins and Michaelentire edifice of international law - and, more
Dockrill in "The Ethics of War" (1979), Richardspecifically, the law of war - is in danger of
Norman in "Ethics, Killing, and War" (1995), Thomascrumbling. The contemporary multilateral regime
Nagel in "War and Massacre", and Elizabethproved inadequate and unable to effectively
Anscombe in "War and Murder".tackle genocide (Rwanda, Bosnia), terror (in Africa,
According to the Catholic Church's rendition of thisCentral Asia, and the Middle East), weapons of
theory, set forth by Bishop Wilton D. Gregory ofmass destruction (Iraq, India, Israel, Pakistan,
the United States Conference of Catholic BishopsNorth Korea), and tyranny (in dozens of members
in his Letter to President Bush on Iraq, datedof the United Nations).
September 13, 2002, going to war is justified ifThis feebleness inevitably led to the resurgence of
these conditions are met:"might is right" unilateralism, as practiced, for
"The damage inflicted by the aggressor on theinstance, by the United States in places as diverse
nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave,as Grenada and Iraq. This pernicious and ominous
and certain; all other means of putting an end to itphenomenon is coupled with contempt towards
must have been shown to be impractical orand suspicion of international organizations,
ineffective; there must be serious prospects oftreaties, institutions, undertakings, and the
success; the use of arms must not produce evilsprevailing consensual order.
and disorders graver than the evil to beIn a unipolar world, reliant on a single superpower
eliminated."for its security, the abrogation of the rules of the
A just war is, therefore, a last resort, all othergame could lead to chaotic and lethal anarchy with
peaceful conflict resolution options having beena multitude of "rebellions" against the emergent
exhausted.American Empire. International law - the formalism
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy sums upof "natural law" - is only one of many competing
the doctrine thus:universalist and missionary value systems. Militant
"The principles of the justice of war areIslam is another. The West must adopt the
commonly held to be:former to counter the latter.