Justice in Action: Just War Theory Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy Co-Director, Center for Ethics in Science & Technology University

Justice in Action:Justice in Action:Just War TheoryJust War Theory

Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D.Professor of Philosophy

Co-Director, Center for Ethics in Science & Technology

University of San [email protected]

April 11, 2023

Overview

Three principal areas:

The just conditions for entering into a war.

•When is it just to go to war?The just conditions for conducting a war.

•What are we permitted to do in carrying out a war and what is forbidden as unjust?

The just conditions of peace.

•What are the conditions of peace that insure the just conclusion of a war?

04/11/23 (c) Lawrence M. Hinman 2

Acknowledgement

This presentation is based on the excellent article by Brian D. Orend, "War ,“ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.


Jus ad bellum:The Just Conditions for Going to War

Just cause Right intention Proper authority and public declaration Last resort Probability of success Proportionality


Just cause

Protection from external attack is the first and foremost—and in the eyes of some, the only--just cause of war; based on the right of self-defense.

Some have maintained the humanitarian intervention is also justified, where we go to war to save the lives of innocent people who are being attacked by an aggressor.


Right intention

The war must be pursued for a just cause.

Unacceptable intentions:

•Revenge•Political expansion•Land acquisition


Proper authority and public declaration

Traditionally, only nations have the authority to declare war.

Wars must be publicly declared, not pursued in secret.Question: Can terrorist groups be said to declare war? If not, is the response to terrorism really war?


Last resort

If there are other means of achieving the same objectives, such as negotiations or economic blockades, they should be pursued exhaustively first.


Probability of success

The rationale here is clear and simple: war is a great evil, and it is wrong to cause such killing, suffering, and destruction in a futile effort. Question: what about countries that feel they are

resisting evil even when there is little or no chance of success? For example, small European countries being invaded by the Nazis.


Proportionality

Are the possible benefits (especially in terms of a just peace) proportional to the death, suffering, and destruction that the pursuit of the war will bring about?


Jus in bello:The Just Conditions for Conducting a War

Three principal conditions:

1. Discrimination

2. Proportionality

3. No means that are evil in themselves.


Discrimination

The key requirement here is to discriminate between those who are engaged in harm (soldiers) and those who are not (civilians).

This has increasingly become an issue as countries such as the United States have turned to high altitude bombing campaigns that are more likely to put civilians at risk.


Proportionality

Onoe should only use the amount of force that is proportional to the (just) ends being sought.

This raises interesting issues in the use of massive air strikes against bin Laden by the United States.


No Means Evil in Themselves

Orend lists a number of means that count as evil in themselves.

•“mass rape campaigns; •“genocide or ethnic cleansing; •“torturing captured enemy soldiers; and •“using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled, like

chemical or biological agents.”


Jus post bellum:Creating a Just Peace

Brian Orend gives 5 conditions for a just peace:1. Just cause for termination. 2. Right intention. 3. Public declaration and legitimate authority. 4. Discrimination. 5. Proportionality.


Just cause for termination

Orend: “a reasonable vindication of those rights whose violation grounded the resort to war in the first place.”

•Unjust gains from aggression have been eliminated•Victims’ rights reinstated•Formal apology•Acceptance of reasonable punishment


Right intention

Excludes motives such as revenge

Prosecution of war crimes needs to be applied to all, not just the vanquished.


Public declaration and legitimate authority

This requirement is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial.


Discrimination

Differentiate between

•Political and military leaders•Military and civilian populations

Punish the elite responsible for prosecuting the war, not the uninvolved civilians.


Proportionality

The vanquished do not lose their rights

•No ‘witch hunts’Proportional to reasonable rights vindication


Documents

Justice in Action: Just War Theory Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy Co-Director, Center for Ethics in Science & Technology University