Blogdope_Admin
What Are the Rules of War? Exploring Just War Theory
As an eighth-grader in the early 2000s, I remember the debates and discussions surrounding the United States’ decision to invade Iraq in 2003. At the time, the arguments made by President George W. Bush and his administration about the justification for war seemed complex and nuanced. Looking back now, over 20 years later, I can see that they were grappling with an ethical framework known as Just War Theory.
Just War Theory is an ancient set of principles that aim to determine when it is morally acceptable for a nation to go to war, and how that war should be conducted. This theory has two main components: jus ad bellum, which considers the justification for going to war, and jus in bello, which looks at the justice of actions taken during the war itself.
In this in-depth blog post, we’ll dive into the key criteria of Just War Theory and examine how they were applied (or not) in the case of the Iraq War. We’ll also explore some of the challenges and criticisms that have been leveled against this ethical framework over time. By the end, readers will have a deeper understanding of the moral complexities involved in the decision to wage war.
More: Ancient Aliens: Lost Sci-Fi Tech of Ancient Worlds
The Criteria of Jus Ad Bellum
The first part of Just War Theory, jus ad bellum, outlines six key criteria that a nation must consider before deciding to go to war. Let’s take a closer look at each one:
Just Cause
The most fundamental requirement of jus ad bellum is that a nation must have a just, moral reason for waging war. The most widely accepted just cause is self-defense against an armed attack. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein’s hostility toward the US and his potential possession of weapons of mass destruction constituted a threat that justified pre-emptive action.
However, the theory distinguishes between pre-emptive action, where there is clear evidence of an imminent attack, and preventive action, where the threat is more speculative. The Iraq War was likely viewed as the latter, which is much harder to justify under Just War Theory.
Right Intention
Even if a nation has just cause, its leaders must also have the right intention in going to war. The goal should be to achieve something good, not just to inflict harm on the enemy. The Bush administration claimed that their intention was to depose Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq. But many were skeptical of these stated intentions, given the complex geopolitical factors at play.
Proper Authority
Only a legitimate governing authority, such as the national government, can declare war according to Just War Theory. This criterion was met in the case of the Iraq War, as it was authorized by the US Congress. However, the question of what constitutes a “legitimate” authority can become murky, especially in conflicts where the sovereignty of a nation is disputed.
Probability of Success
The theory states that a nation should only go to war if it has a reasonable chance of success. This is to avoid the unnecessary loss of life and resources. In the case of Iraq, there were doubts about whether the US and its allies could achieve their stated goals, even if they were able to quickly topple Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Proportionality
This criterion requires that the anticipated benefits of going to war must outweigh the likely harm and destruction it will cause. In other words, the peace that would be achieved must be greater than the costs of the war itself. Predicting these outcomes with certainty is extremely difficult, but it’s a crucial consideration.
Last Resort
Finally, Just War Theory holds that war should only be used as a last resort, after all other non-violent means of resolving the conflict have been exhausted. This raises challenging questions about how to define and measure the availability of alternatives.
In the case of Iraq, the Bush administration did attempt some diplomatic efforts through the United Nations. However, many felt that they had not given these alternatives enough time or effort before resorting to military action.
Jus In Bello: Justice in War
Even if a nation meets all the criteria of jus ad bellum and has a justified reason for going to war, it must also adhere to the principles of jus in bello, or justice in war, during the actual conflict. This includes three key requirements:
Discrimination
Warring parties must only target legitimate military objectives, and take all feasible precautions to avoid harming civilians. The doctrine of double effect allows for civilian casualties if they are unintended consequences of attacks on valid military targets.
However, the reality of modern warfare often falls short of this ideal. Tragically, it’s estimated that over 200,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the eight-year Iraq War conflict.
Proportionality
The harm and destruction caused by military actions must be proportionate to the military advantage being sought. This is another area where the Iraq War faced significant criticism, as the scale of the devastation seemed disproportionate to the goals of the conflict.
Necessity
Every military action taken during the war must be necessary to achieve the war’s objectives. This rules out gratuitous violence or cruelty. The abuses and torture of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad were a clear violation of this principle.
Challenges to Just War Theory
Just War Theory has been the subject of much debate and criticism over the centuries. Some of the key challenges include:
Moral Ambiguity
The criteria of Just War Theory are complex and often open to interpretation. Reasonable people can disagree on whether a particular war meets the necessary conditions. This ambiguity makes it difficult to apply the theory with any certainty.
Cultural Differences
Different cultures and societies may have radically different moral perspectives on the ethics of war. What one nation views as a just cause or a legitimate target, another may see as unjustified aggression. Navigating these divergent worldviews is a major challenge.
Technological Advances
The rapid evolution of military technology, from drones to autonomous weapons systems, adds new layers of complexity to the moral calculus of war. These innovations can make it easier to wage war, while also blurring the lines of discrimination and proportionality.
Exclusion of Marginalized Voices
Feminist scholar Lucinda Peach has pointed out that Just War Theory has historically been dominated by male perspectives, ignoring the experiences and insights of women who are profoundly impacted by war. Broadening the conversation to include more diverse voices is crucial.
Rejection of the Premise
Some scholars and activists have gone so far as to reject the entire premise of Just War Theory, arguing that war is inherently unjust and that no set of criteria can ever justify it. They contend that the theory serves to legitimize and perpetuate the horrors of armed conflict.
The Evolving Nature of Just War Theory
Despite these significant challenges, Just War Theory remains a vital framework for grappling with the moral complexities of war. The theory is constantly evolving to address new realities.
One recent development is the concept of jus post bellum, or justice after war. This asks what the ethical obligations of combatants are in the aftermath of a conflict, in terms of accountability, reparations, and establishing a lasting peace.
Additionally, philosophers and ethicists continue to refine and debate the existing criteria of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, seeking to make them more robust and applicable to the modern world.
Conclusion: Interrogating Our Leaders’ Decisions
Ultimately, as the Crash Course video concludes, it is extremely difficult to definitively determine whether any war is truly “just.” The standards set by Just War Theory are high, and there are valid arguments and counterarguments for nearly every criterion.
However, that doesn’t mean the theory is without value. Rather, it serves as a crucial lens through which we can interrogate the decisions of our political leaders when they choose to send their nations into armed conflict.
By closely examining the justifications offered for war through the framework of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, we can hold our leaders accountable and push them to grapple with the profound moral and ethical implications of their actions. Even if we can’t arrive at a clear-cut answer, the process of asking these difficult questions is essential for upholding the principles of justice, human rights, and the sanctity of human life.
We must continue to evolve our understanding of Just War Theory, incorporating new perspectives and adapting it to the realities of modern warfare. Only then can we hope to navigate the moral minefield of armed conflict with the care and nuance it deserves.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings