Friday
22 October 1999
0900-1100 (IS)
What is most significant about just war tradition in the twentieth century is that it has been recaptured as a moral, and more specifically, as a theological tradition.
James Turner Johnson
Any distinction between belligerent and nonbelligerents is no longeradmissible today either in fact or in theory.
Giulio Douhet
Introduction:
Moral and ethical considerations have influenced military decision-making throughout history. The norms have varied with different cultures and different historical eras, but these norms, sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, have guided military commanders in issues such as treatment of prisoners, status of non-combatants, and the weapons employed. United States forces are bound by numerous laws, the Geneva Conventions, and other international agreements, but the underlying principles governing the general conduct of war are much older. In the United States and much of the Western world, the moral and ethical standards derive from theologians, predominantly but not exclusively Catholic, who established the just-war criteria: criteria that specifically address why and when recourse to war is permissible (jus ad bellum) and standards for the conduct of war (jus in bello). Those criteria follow:
JUST WAR CRITERIA
DECISION FOR WAR (Jus ad Bellum)
Just Cause: only to confront a real and certain danger
Competent Authority: must be declared by those with responsibility for public order
Comparative Justice: do the rights and values involved justify killing
Right Intention: intended only for the pursuit of peace
Last Resort: all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted
Probability of Success: forego irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance
Proportionality: the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred must be proportionate to the good expected
CONDUCT OF WAR (Jus in Bello)
Proportionality: response to aggression must not exceed the nature of the aggression
Discrimination: response to aggression must be directed against unjust aggressors, not against innocent people.
Even though these criteria have been well known and accepted for centuries, the twentieth century has provided circumstances which present particular challenges to adherence to moral and ethical standards; thus the placement of this topic. World War II and its "judgment" at Nuremberg focused attention on the issue of war crimes, and the problem has unfortunately surfaced in numerous conflicts since 1945. Many of the German defendants at Nuremberg claimed that the Allies were also guilty of war crimes. They argued that the Anglo-American combined bomber offensive had been a campaign of genocide aimed at the German people, and to many Japanese, the B-29 offensive against their cities must have seemed similarly directed. German defendants at Nuremberg also pointed out that the Russians had massacred large numbers of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest in 1940, and noted that the Russians received no repercussions from their actions. Some observers of the Nuremberg proceedings concluded, not completely without reason, that only those who lose a war can be found guilty of war crimes. You will have the opportunity throughout the remainder of this year to analyze such moral and ethical dilemmas, as well as to focus on specific actions taken by decision-makers. A single lesson is obviously insufficient to treat the subject matter fully, but hopefully, it will help heighten an awareness of how ethical considerations affect military strategy.
Objectives:
- Understand the jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria for employing military force.
- Be able to identify moral and ethical considerations in strategic military decision-making and their implications for the employment of military power.
Issues for Consideration:
- How can conflict between differing societies be regulated? Do you lean toward the school that argues that without some effective form of world government conflict between societies with differing moral standards cannot be regulated? Or are you closer to the school represented by the reading from Lackey "which asserts the objective existence of abstract properties, including moral properties" that can be used to regulate the behavior of different societies?
- Lackey argues, pages 70-74, that the British strategic bombing of Germany in World War II was neither necessary, nor proportionate, nor discriminate. Using the same three criteria, how do you assess the campaigns in the Gulf War and Kosovo?
- How would you justify or refute the morality of decapitating a hostile government?
- Assess the moral implications of using economic sanctions against a hostile nation.
Required Readings:
*James Turner Johnson, Can Modern War be Just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 1-29. (Reprint)
* Douglas P. Lackey, The Ethics of War and Peace (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989), pp. 58-97. (Reprint)
* J. Bryan Hehir, "Kosovo: A War of Values and the Values of War," America (15 May 1999), pp. 7-12. (Reprint)
* Joy Gordon, "Sanctions as Siege Weapons," The Nation (22 March 1999), pp. 18-22. (Reprint)
Supplemental Readings:
* Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1977).
* William V. O'Brien, The Conduct of Just and Limited War (New York, NY: Praeger, 1981).
* Malham M. Wakin, ed., War, Morality, and the Military Profession (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979).
 |
 |
 |