210 likes | 499 Vues
Great Moral Questions. Principles: avoiding harm, doing goodIssues: truth, duty, rights, liberty, justice, virtue and characterProblems
E N D
1. The Justification of War Pre-emption
Counter-terrorism
Collective Security
Humanitarian Intervention
3. Overview Jus ad bellum discuss the views of St. Thomas and Michael Walzer on justification of use of force
Jus in bello distinguish this from next weeks topic, honor on the battlefield
Counter-terrorism, Humanitarian Intervention & Virtual War (jus ad pacem) how do these new developments fit into the classical and modern discussion?
4. St. Thomas Aquinas: When is it permissible to use force? Natural Law offers three basic criteria
(1) declared by a legitimate authority
(2) just cause
(3) right intention (to do good, like restoring peace, and to avoid evil, like the deliberate killing of noncombatants)
5. Four Additional Qualifications War is a last resort; exhaust all other options
Likelihood of success
Proportionality of ends the value of the benefits sought or the harms redressed must be proportional to the sacrifice and damage to be incurred
Just means a just end pursued via an unjust means loses its moral force (CWO Hugh Thompson at My Lai) Honor on the Battlefield
6. Two Modes of Discourse Note that this so-called classical Just War Tradition (JWT; not a theory) has its roots in Plato, Cicero, St. Augustine
Sustained philosophical reflection about the necessary conditions on the use of lethal force
A second, very distinct legalist tradition arises in the 16th-17th Centuries
7. International Law & the Legalist Paradigm Reformation Wars & Peace of Westphalia (1648) Just War doctrine permits too much
The Domestic Analogy: Nation-states as individuals with rights of Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity (cf. J.S. Mill On Liberty)
Wars of Self Defense against aggression
Wars of Law Enforcement (Collective Security)
8. The Legalist Tradition In Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer outlines the general features of what he terms the legalist paradigm (Ch. IV)
since it consistently reflects the conventions of law and order. It does not necessarily reflect the arguments of lawyers, though legal as well as moral debate has its starting point here. (p. 61)
Walzers own purpose is to evaluate the limitations of this paradigm, and propose important revisions to this so-called baseline model
His original preface (p. xvii-xx) suggests that his is a summary of a moral, and not a purely legal, argument with a lengthy history which it is not his explicit intention to discuss (though he makes reference to this history and its major figures from time to time)
9. Baseline Model: Legalist Paradigm (Walzer, pp. 58-63) International society of independent states
International law protects territorial integrity (self determination and a common life)
Aggression/use of force = criminal act
Aggression justifies two responses: self defense and law enforcement (allies)
NOTE: very sharp limitation on use of military; aggressor states may be repulsed and punished
10. Hugo Grotius 1583-1645 The locus classicus for this paradigm is Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), which was published in 1625
I saw in the whole Christian world a license of fighting at which even barbarous nations might blush. Wars were begun on trifling pretexts or none at all, and carried on without any reference [to] law, Divine or human."Hugo Grotius -- Prolegomena
11. Other Sources of Legalism Francisco di Vitorias earlier De Juri Belli (1539), likewise sets out principles of jus gentium, [Law of Nations] in the form of law-like moral principles that civilized peoples everywhere recognize as binding concerning the use of force
the sole and only just cause for waging war is when harm has been inflicted (therefore no wars of religious conversion!)
Direct targeting of noncombatants or killing enemy prisoners is prohibited (jus in bello)
Kant, in To Perpetual Peace, (1795, which he labels a philosophical sketch) sets forth a list of law-like or treaty-like principles designed to foster what he terms a federation of free states by restricting the main sources of conflict among them, e.g.
standing armies shall be gradually abolished (#3)
no nation shall forcibly interfere with the constitution and government of another (#5)
12. Military Ethics in the New Millennium Terrorism: cyber, nuclear, conventional
Rogue states (Iraq, North Korea) & law enforcement
Failed states (Rwanda, Liberia) & humanitarian intervention
Force Protection and Virtual War (dramatic rise in proportion of noncombatant casualties)
Dangerous proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD -- Chemical, biological warfare)
Technological innovations (Star Wars)
13. The Problem of Failed States Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia
States fail when they are unable (or unwilling) to provide routine protection and enforce the rule of law
For the foreseeable future, the greatest threat to individual citizens will come not from foreign powers or enemy nations, but from their own government and fellow citizens
14. Dilemma of the International Community Often no clear political motivation for intervention in failed states
Intervention is technically a violation of international law (Article 51, U.N. Charter, limits use of force only to protection of national sovereignty)
Political prospects for intervention bear no clear relationship to principles of justice
Humanitarian missions often challenge military forces to operate in new and unfamiliar ways
15. Jus ad Pacem Under what conditions do we engage in pre-emptive counter-terrorist or humanitarian intervention? (See Table 2, JME)
Interventionist imperative: When a clearly recognizable injustice is in progress, and when we as international bystanders are in a position to intervene to prevent it, then it follows that we have a prima facie duty to intervene.
Essential features: objectives are by definition unclear, mission, success, and exit strategy are invariably poorly defined
16. The Problem of Preemption President Bushs West Point Commencement Address (June 1, 2002)
Cold War strategies are obsolete
Conventional deterrence and MAD strategies dont work against terrorists and non-state actors
Must be prepared to undertake preemptive action against potential adversaries to protect lives and liberties
17. John Stuart MillA Few Words on Nonintervention (1859) [T]here assuredly are cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with attack; and it is very important that nations should make up their minds in time, as to what these cases are. There are few questions which more require to be taken in hand by ethical and political philosophers, with a view to establish some rule or criterion whereby the justifiableness of intervening in the internal affairs of other countries, and (what is sometimes fully as questionable) the justifiableness of refraining from intervention, may be brought to a definite and rational test (my emphases).
18. The False Dilemma of Defensive War There is no explicit limitation in classical JWT of war to self-defense or repelling aggression
St. Thomas (STh II-II, Q:40) discusses bellum offensivum, to regain stolen goods, to thwart and to punish organized evildoing, or to protect innocents from harm.
19. Preventive Wars & Pre-emptive Strikes Michael Walzer, Ch 5: cites Edmund Burke, Francis Bacon, utilitarian arguments favoring defense of balance of power
Not merely present ill-wishers, but states and nationsthat are already engaged in harming us (p. 81)
20. Pre-emption & Legalist Paradigm Walzer argues that (his) Legalist paradigm needs to be revised w/these criteria:
Manifest intent to injure
A degree of active participation that makes this intent a positive danger
A general situation in which waiting, or doing anything other than fighting, greatly magnifies the risk
21. Conclusion As a theory, the legalist tradition is severely strained by recent developments
Classical or philosophical JWT encounters no such fundamental, conceptual dissonance; instead, it merely confronts the difficult question of whether intervention to prevent terror, avert humanitarian tragedy, halt organized evil-doing (Aquinas), enforce justice, protect vulnerable rights and liberties, or repair the ravages of injustice constitute just causes for war
And if so, who or what in each case needs to be deputized to carry this out, whether non-violent or less destructive alternatives have been sufficiently explored and exhausted, whether the ends justify the means, whether such means can succeed in realizing their stated ends, and toward those ends, enforcing limitations on combatants that will ensure that the use of force will indeed promote, rather than frustrate, the cause of peace and liberty, or further the ends of justice