War is a necessary evil WAR APPLIED ETHICS

“War is a necessary evil!” WAR APPLIED ETHICS “War can never be justified!”

Just War While warfare has never lacked it’s enthusiasts, most theorists would sympathise with the sentiments of the poet Charles Sorley, writing in 1915, a few months before his death, aged 21 at the battle of Loos: ‘There is no such thing as a just war. What we are doing is casting out Satan by Satan. ’ However, many would agree that, while war is always an evil, some devils are worse than others. Yes, war is to be avoided if possible, but not at any cost. It may be the lesser of two evils; the motive may be so compelling, the cause so important, that recourse to arms is morally justified. In these circumstances, war can be just war.

An introduction as ng h s, it i h t tu me If so ical sta as n d o e can accept the ll g is a ing t a thin v a h d t ul sho lities qua ts kind e of i hav The philosophical debate over the morality or war, is just as relevant today as ever! The conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity in the 4 th century called for a compromise between the pacifist leanings of the early church and the military needs of imperial rulers. Augustine urged such an accommodation, which was taken up by Aquinas, who developed the now canonical distinction between ‘jus ad bellum’ and ‘jus in bello’ (more about these two next!) Debate in just war theory is essentially structured around these two ideas.

Aquinas’ distinction Jus Ad Bellum §Justice in the move to war, the conditions under which it is morally right to take up arms. (Just War) Jus In Bello §Justice in war, rules of conduct once fighting is underway. (Conducted Justly)

Jus ad bellum refers to the rules concerning the declaration of war, and includes: • Proper Authority - War should be declared by the proper authority • Just Cause - A nation should have a justifiable reason for declaring war • Right Intention - The outcome being sought should be noble, generally to bring about peace • Last Resort - Every effort should have been made to resolve a conflict diplomatically, without the use of force • Proportionality - The damage caused by going to war must not be greater than the good achieved • Win Possible - there should be a good chance of success • Comparative Justice - neither side will ever be without fault, but you need to be more right than your opponents These criteria have remained broadly unchanged for centuries, although specific details have altered. For example, the UN Charter states that the UN should authorise any use of force beyond repelling an immediate armed attack against a sovereign territory. Some nations, however, do not recognise the UN's authority.

Jus in bello A level text books describe this as 'Just Method'. This includes: • 'Discrimination' - that innocent people should not be targeted. (Some commentators speak of 'civilians' or 'noncombatants' here) • 'Proportionality' – Military force should be proportional to the wrong endured and the outcome sought. Minimum force should be used to achieve the desired ends

Jus in bello & Jus ad bellum Clearly it is possible for a just war to be fought unjustly, and an unjust war justly. In other words, the requirements of jus ad bellum and of jus in bello, in particular, overlap with the subject matter of international law, and infringements on both winning and losing sides should be in principle assessed as war crimes (Geneva conventions)

Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons • Due to the nature of these weapons, it is generally agreed that the Jus in Bello criteria above cannot be met if chemical, nuclear or biological weapons are used. • In 2006, cluster bombs were dropped on Lebanon. Only 40% of these exploded on contact, leaving more than half unexploded. • Obviously a lot depends on the nature of these weapons, and the term 'nuclear weapon' can apply to a broad range of devices. • Just like land-mines, these are still causing serious disability and death to innocent people, especially children, and will for many years to come. • Where weapons kill indiscriminately, there are real concerns. • These sorts of weapons are also seen as a violation of Jus in Bello.

Criticisms of JWT § All war is unjust § The theory is unrealistic and pointless because nations decide to fight wars on the basis of realism and strength, not ethical theory. § The theory carries no guarantee that it will be appropriately applied or that it will be applicable to all circumstances. § The theory could be applied to any war to make it appear to be just, however both sides will say that their claim to justice is legitimate and yet both claims cannot be equally valid. § The fact that there are conditions in which a just war can be fought means that the war is more likely to be fought. § Terrorists are often uninterested in ethical and moral considerations and to follow a moral way would therefore put a nation at a disadvantage when fighting terrorists. § Weapons of mass destruction make the JWT unworkable.

To pass the exam you will need to; • Not make up your opinion in advance. Each new conflict should be looked at and judged according to the specifics of that conflict; • Know the Just War criteria off by heart, and be aware of where these criteria have come from; • Be able to apply these in an objective way to the conflict you are looking at. Too often, these criteria are simply used to justify a decision that's already been made; • Some scholars claim that the Just War criteria need to be updated - that they simply don't apply in modern war-fare. You need to understand why they say this, particularly post-9 -11 and with the specific issue of terrorism; • As an ethics student, you need to understand what different ethical theories would say about individual conflicts and modern warfare in general.

NOT JUST WAR Realism § Realists are sceptical about the whole project of applying ethical concepts to war. § International influence and national security are the key concerns – real global players play hard-ball, morality is for wimps. Pacifism § Pacifists in totally contrast, believe that morality must hold sway in international affairs. Unlike the advocate of just war, military action, for the pacifist, is never the right solution – there is always a better way.

Your Task • Using the mind map of ethical responses to war, apply ‘just war’ theory to the case studies. • Detail what each of the different ethical theories would say about both conflicts and modern warfare in general.

Fee dba ck t g r oup o th ans we you e r on s to t r he any task t h eor cho sen y.