The Ethics of the Just War Theory
Ethics chair Gordon Haist began the meeting with history of ethics and war. St. Augustine made significant contributions to the development of the Just War Theory, which is shaped by two central concepts: Jus ad bellum (justice of war) and Jus in bello (justice in war).
| Jus ad bellum | Jus in bello |
| The cause must be just | Noncombatants must not be attacked |
| The intention must be right | Force must be proportional to just goals. End must be clear. |
| Declaration of war must be lawful | Means must not be evil (rape, torture, Anthrax) |
| War must be a last resort | Humanitarian intervention as sanctioned by multinational agency. |
Engagement must have a probability of success. Terrorism is unjust.
The pain inflicted must only be proportional to the benefits of engagement.
A third concept of restorative justice is sometimes proposed. Jus post bellum (Justice in peace).
This concept addresses fairness in treaties, the restoration of rights, and reconstruction, both political and
economic. At this stage, however, the legal agreements that end the war are binding. They become the force of
the ethic that instituted them.
Just War in Our Times? A Dialogue on the Ethics of War
Three wars currently exist: The Sudanese Armed Forces against the Rapid Support Forces, The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Israeli aggression in Gaza.
Wars are won on the basis of strategy but a critical analysis of them is critical to accepting their outcome. On principle, we fault the conflict in the Sudan for its ethnic cleansing motivations and the Russian invasion for lacking a just cause.
Just War Theory, despite the paradox of its name, provides a means for examining wars on the grounds of principle instead of strategy alone. The Justice of War along with The Justice in War were discussed pertaining to Gulf War l and the Israeli war against Hamas and Hezbollah.
Gulf War l
Right to War - Jus ad Bellum
Gulf War l was praised for its rapid closure, its UN support, and its defeat of Iraq’s attempted annexation of Kuwait. Arguing that this was a violation of international order, U.S. president H.W. Bush, together with Britain, successfully engineered a series of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, culminating in an ultimatum for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait or face military intervention. The actual war lasted only days with Iraqi forces overwhelmed by superior air power. Clearly this was a strategic success for the U.S. leadership and its military.
Was the war morally justified? Was it a Just War? Consider:
Just Cause: The administration had to arrange significant financial commitments to gain votes in the Security Council. Despite that, and despite the politics involved, the cause was clearly just.
Right Intention: The stated intention was to restore the world order. Since significant resources of oil were involved, other motives were undoubtedly involved. But the intent was clear: restore the peace and allow market conditions to function freely.
Lawful Declaration of War. UN Resolution 665, a resolution to create a naval blockade, did not specify the means of enforcement. This may have been a breach in the UN Charter. A peacekeeping force would normally be created, but the U.S, had already built up a strong military presence in Saudi Arabia, and a U.S. led coalition was approved instead. This limited the Security Council’s influence over the nature of the enforcement.
War as a Last Resort: The economic sanctions imposed on Iraq did not have time to succeed before the intervention occurred. Perhaps they could have been effective, but holding together a coalition of forces long enough for that to happen would not be realistic. So war was not a last resort.
Probability of Success: Hussein had offered to withdraw from Kuwait “linked” to certain conditions. These were indications of pre-negotiations which were ignored. The coalition led by the U.S. had no doubt that it could expel Iraqi troops which they decisively did-including massacring a long line of soldiers retreating from Kuwait City, along the Al-Matias Ridge. Such a massacre was excessive.
Rules of War - Jus in Bello
Discrimination: Carpet bombing was not used, but “smart” bomb failures and “dumb” bombs would often enough miss their targets. “Earth Shaker” bombs were deployed against Iraqi lines, causing indiscriminate physical pain wherever they landed.
Proportionality: Was the military intervention proportionate to the goal? Viewed narrowly, in terms of liberating Kuwait, it was. But the coalition did not simply liberate Kuwait. It bombed Iraqi infrastructure (dams, refineries) as well. Saddam Hussein’s increasingly bellicose threats and his army’s destruction of Kuwaiti oil reserves and dumping oil into the Gulf in retreat, presumably meant disproportionality was clearly exercised by the enemy. Even so, ending the war rapidly did preserve proportionality concerning the intervention itself.
Means: Hussein’s threats to use biological weapons did not materialize. The coalition’s use of firepower overwhelmed the Iraqi forces and in that sense, the means used were excessive, as became evident in the aftermath of the war with worsening conditions for health and the ground in Iraq.
Humanitarian Intervention: This intervention would not become a protracted war. Not a state, but the UN, was ultimately responsible for it. The war ended rapidly and that was the one humane feature of it.
From the audience came these comments:
The discussion of a Just War should come before the conflict, not after.
Every war is just in the eyes of the aggressor. It is unjust for the other side.
Hitler claimed War is Just. Putin would also say it is just. Justice doesn’t have anything to do with territory but with people. Learn how to live with others. Mind your own business.
War is not acceptable.
If there is no right or no justice, do we need the laws?
Regarding the US civil war. The South said this was not a just war.
Women’s idea of justice is totally different.
War is just only when it is self-defense.
Can it be justified for us to defend Taiwan against China? The answer was it was a cost benefit issue, not an ethics issue.
If enough time goes by ALL is justified. We must go back in history to see what is justified .
Why was there no outrage over the taking of Crimea? It could be due to a large Russian population there.
Principle of war- Some soldiers wouldn’t kill. What are the ethics of killing in defense of country versus murder?
Israel’s Ongoing War with Hamas and Hezbollah
Right to War - Jus ad Bellum
Israel’s Ongoing War with Hamas and Hezbollah began on October 7, 2023 with the invasion of Israel by Palestinian militants. Over 1,000 Israelis were killed and 251 hostages taken. Israel responded with military intervention that has resulted in over 43,000 deaths in Gaza. The means of war has been to bomb places militants hide, which means hospitals, schools, homes, tunnels, etc. where militants reputedly hide behind civilians. Most recently Israel has engaged in war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, responding to Hezbollah’s rockets to Israel. It triggered pager bombs to explode in the pockets of militants wherever they were, and it is intensely bombarding Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon. Its justification is to restore Israelis to their homes along the border after they had been driven away by Hezbollah militants.
Just Cause: In response to the October 7th raid, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the purpose of the invasion of Gaza was to destroy Hamas. It appears that this had meant “at whatever the cost”.
Lawful Declaration of War: Israel formally declared war against Hamas before entering Gaza. It has had the backing of the United States and many world leaders. The pager attack on Hezbollah, according to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, amounted to a declaration of war on Hezbollah.
War as Last Resort: Israel clearly had the right to defend itself. But was it the only resort and therefore the last resort?
Rules of War - Jus in Bello
Discrimination: Civilians in Gaza have been told to leave where fighting is occurring, but the toll of citizens killed by Israeli strikes is staggering.
Proportionality: Do the means justify the ends? Are the ends achievable?
Means: War is hell, as Walzer said repeatedly. But are the means accountable?
Humanitarian Intervention: There has been no clear indication to date that a humanitarian intervention is possible in this war.
Comments from the Audience
How much evil should we do in order to do good? Now we face the same dilemma as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What is the intention of war? To eliminate Hamas. Compare with Afghanistan where the intention was not clear, nor was how to get out made clear. Now Israel is bombing the hell out of Gaza .
What is the strategy vs the goal? The goal is to knock out Hamas .Israel has moral to eliminate Hamas.
War is always evil
A nation’s culture drives it to war.
The Israeli Gaza war would end tomorrow if hostages are released.
Palestinians have different viewpoint of war than the Israelis.
We are trying to tell Israel what to do and we have no right to do so. Yet we are supplying arms. It is all political.
Per an Israeli paper, the majority of Israelis want war stopped
Netanyahu has boxed himself into a corner. Biden needs to cut military aid.
Politically we can’t cut aid.
Israel must have a 2 state solution and respect Palestinians.
Israel is better now than with a 2 state solution. This conflict has made Netanyahu better.
Biased news continues to be a problem. Americans see the world through a narrow lens that often has inaccurate information.
Gaza had previously been harassed by Israel.
Israel could have found Hamas one by one in tunnels. This would take time but no civilians would have been harmed.
Look at issues through principles, not just strategies.
All values are relative. There are no absolutes.
A major concern entails how one can express condemnation of the Israeli conduct without being interpreted as being anti-Jewish.