Lesson 11A Just War Theory

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Just War Theory:

Just War Theory Leadership and Ethics

Just War Theory:

Just War Theory Classical Just War Theory UN Charter The Legalist Paradigm The Weinberger Doctrine The Albright Doctrine The Bush Doctrine

Just War Theory Distinctions::

Just War Theory Distinctions: Jus ad bellum – When is war morally justified? Jus in bello – What actions and conduct are justified by war?

Origins of the Just War Theory:

Origins of the Just War Theory Western Origin Developed over time Romans affirmed right-authority and proportionality Influenced strongly by Christianity Late middle ages before concept is completed and incorporated

Just War According to Aquinas:

Just War According to Aquinas Those who wage war justly aim at peace! Three criteria need to be met: Authority of the ruler Just cause Rightful intention

Just War Theory:

Just War Theory Best conceived as cultural consensus Theory rests on Nine Propositions Seven in the jus ad bellum category; Going to war Two in the jus in bello category; Prosecuting war

Rightness or Justice in going to War – Jus ad Bellum:

Rightness or Justice in going to War – Jus ad Bellum Just Cause Competent Authority Comparative Justice Right Intention Last Resort Probability of Success Proportionality of Ends

Rightness or Justice in Prosecuting War – Jus in Bello:

Rightness or Justice in Prosecuting War – Jus in Bello Proportionality of means Discrimination/non-combatant immunity

Shift Towards Legal Basis:

Shift Towards Legal Basis Protestant Reformation Expanding International Law War becoming more Deadly De-emphasis of Chivalry General shift from jus ad bellum to jus in bello Rise of National Sovereignty

Legal Basis in 20th Century:

Legal Basis in 20 th Century De-emphasis of Sovereignty; Thinking in terms beyond the nation state Creation of League of Nations Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal United Nations – legal basis for use of force in the UN charter

UN Charter Article 2, Section 4:

UN Charter Article 2, Section 4 “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”

UN Charter Article 51:

UN Charter Article 51 “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of the individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”

United Nations Charter:

United Nations Charter Essentially allows only one cause of war: The cause is self defense in response to aggression Nations can defend themselves and other nations may come to the defense of nations which are the victims of aggression

Problems with Charter:

Problems with Charter Does not require armed intervention to halt human right abuses including genocide UN apparent reluctance to act forcefully until the number of victims reaches staggering proportions Sovereignty rights are more important than prevention of genocide Stems from lack of effective sanctions in the international community

Legalist Paradigm:

Legalist Paradigm Concept of Michael Walzer in Just and Unjust Wars 1977 Based on international laws, treaties, and provisions of UN – view of the world Only one reason for fighting; defense of rights (sovereignty/territory) threatened by aggression All others are ruled out

Key Provision of Paradigm:

Key Provision of Paradigm There exists an international society of independent states This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members- above all, the rights of territorial integrity Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty of territorial integrity or another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international society Nothing but aggression can justify war Once the aggressors state has been repulsed, it can also be punished

Problems with Legalist Paradigm:

Problems with Legalist Paradigm Only self-defense or mutual defense in response to aggression can justify resort to force Inability to deal with violence initiated by states against their own citizens Primacy afforded to sovereignty rather than to human rights Failure to differentiate between combatant and non-combatant

Additions to Legalist Paradigm:

Additions to Legalist Paradigm States are justified in using military force in the face of threats of war when failure to do so would risk territorial integrity or political independence War can begin to assist secessionist movements once demonstrated at representative Wars can be justly begun to balance prior interventions by other powers States can be invaded and war begun to rescue people threatened by massacre

Weinberger Doctrine:

Weinberger Doctrine Stemmed from: Lessons learned in Vietnam War Sense of paralysis the U.S. felt following the war Inadequacy of the legalist paradigm and traditional justifications for war Element of the Reagan Doctrine

Criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine:

Criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine Only commit troops if it is deemed vital to our national interests or that of our allies If we do send troops, only do so wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning otherwise do no commit them at all If we do commit troops then we must have clearly defined political and military objectives Relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary Must have reasonable assurance that the public will support the action The commitment of U.S. Forces to combat should be the last resort

Problems with Weinberger:

Problems with Weinberger Appeal to National Interests: What are they and who decides them? Commit force wholeheartedly: Flawed Constitutionally Stating Clear Objectives: Hard to define, articulate and legitimize Relationship between Objectives and Forces: Not enough forces to deal with range of potential interests Public Support: Always precarious in a democracy Last Resort: May be much easier and save lives if done earlier

Additional shortcomings:

Additional shortcomings Lacks response to violence by non-state entities, no distinction between combatants and non, and lack of sanction to prevent genocide

Recognition and formalization of a graduation evolution in U.S. foreign policy.:

Recognition and formalization of a graduation evolution in U.S. foreign policy. The Albright Doctrine

The U.S. would stand ready to deploy military forces not only defend own vital national interests but also, in cooperation with the U.N., deploy forces to defend human rights and protect groups from slaughter or genocide.:

The U.S. would stand ready to deploy military forces not only defend own vital national interests but also, in cooperation with the U.N., deploy forces to defend human rights and protect groups from slaughter or genocide. The Albright Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine “ Our Nation’s cause has always been larger than our Nation’s defense. We fight, as we always have, for a just peace – a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.” President Bush West Point 1 June 2002

The Bush Doctrine:

The Bush Doctrine “ The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.” National Security Strategy

National Security Strategy:

National Security Strategy Champion aspirations for human dignity Strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism…work to prevent attacks against us and our friends Work with others to defuse regional conflicts Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies and our friends with weapons of mass destruction

National Security Strategy:

National Security Strategy Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade Expand the circle of development by open societies and building the infrastructure of democracy Develop agendas of cooperative action with other main centers of global power Transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21 st century.

Conduct of War :

Conduct of War Next:

Weinberger and Panama:

Weinberger and Panama Does the Weinberger Doctrine adhere to the invasion of Panama?

Analysis of Panama:

Analysis of Panama Was the invasion in the national interest of the United States? Four reasons why it was in the best interest: 1. Right to conduct rescue missions to protect U.S. military personnel, nationals and installations 2. Right of self-determination over Noriega’s government claims of sovereignty 3. Asserted legal right to protect its territorial integrity against the shipment of narcotics 4. Right to enforce provision of the Panama Canal Treaty

Was an adequate force used in the invasion and did we go about the operation wholeheartedly?:

Was an adequate force used in the invasion and did we go about the operation wholeheartedly? The operation involved 24,000 and the key military objectives were achieved in a matter of hours Where the goals clearly defined both politically and militarily? Prior to the invasion, the State Department issued a press guidance outlining the political goals of the operation. All goals were met and as previously stated the military goals were achieved in matter of hours.

Was the relationship between objectives and our forces continually reassessed and was there public support?:

Was the relationship between objectives and our forces continually reassessed and was there public support? Both of these criteria were met due to the short duration of the invasion, neither became necessary. Was in fact the invasion a last resort? The invasion was not an early or precipitous one

Critical Thinking:

Critical Thinking Can Nuclear war ever be justified by any of the doctrines? How about Biological and Chemical Warfare? Terrorism? War over Oil?

Doctrine to Intervention:

Doctrine to Intervention Force used to deter terrorist acts in Libya Fall of the Soviet Union Successful intervention in Grenada

Apply:

Apply Classic Theory Just Cause Competent Authority Comparative Justice Right Intention Last Resort Probability of Success Proportionality of Ends Proportionately of means Discrimination/non-combatant immunity Weinberger Doctrine National Interests Wholeheartedly Involvement Defined Goals and Objectives Continually Reassessed Public Support Last Resort Legalist paradigm Independent States Territory integrity Force by one state against another act of aggression and is criminal Justifiable by war of self-defense or law enforcement Nothing but aggression can justify war Once the aggressor has been repulsed, it can also be punished

Meaning of the Doctrine:

Meaning of the Doctrine Application of the paradigm is not automatic, thus there is discrimination in its use Forestall the use of Force Intervention leads to a moral calculus Governments that violate rights and self determination are at intervention risk Legalist Paradigm similarity creates problems; Lacks response to violence by non-state entities, no distinction between combatants and non, and lack of sanction to prevent genocide

authorStream Live Help