OCR special
War
Jon Mayled explains a key area of applied ethics in the first of a series on war and peace
OCR: Unit G572: AS Religious Ethics
There are three principal approaches to issues surrounding war and peace:
■ Just War theory — states can be morally justified in going to war and sometimes war is morally right
■ realism — says that basically ethics has nothing to do with war. War is often necessary to promote security, survival and economic growth
■ pacifism — ethics should be applied to war to ask whether a war is just. However, the answer is always the same: war is always wrong and there is always a better solution than fighting
Just War theory
Just War theory is always being redeveloped and has been codified into modern international laws such as the United Nations Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions.
The origins of Just War theory go back to thinkers such as Aristotle (384–322 BCE) and Cicero (106–43 BCE), who said that a war in self-defence was just. Christian development of Just War theory came with Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–97) and his student Augustine of Hippo (354–430). According to Bishop Eusebius (260/265–339/340), Christian pacifism was to be strictly for clergy, monks and nuns; lay Christians were to defend the country with force.
Ambrose, Augustine and Aquinas (1225– 74) developed Just War theory. Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) and Francisco de Vitoria (c. 1483–1546) added extra conditions of proportionality, last resort and reasonable chance of success.
Just War theory can be divided into three parts:
■ jus ad bellum — the justice of resorting to war in the first place
■ jus in bello — the justice of conduct within the war
■ jus post bellum — the justice of peace agreements and the ending of the war
For war to be justified a state must fulfil each of the requirements, as described below.
Jus ad bellum
1 Just cause
There must be a good reason to go to war.
These are some of the acceptable reasons:
■ a just war must avenge wrong
■ a nation has just cause when it is trying to correct a violation of its rights
■ the victim nation has the right to punish those who are responsible for the injustice
■ the prevention of injustice is also a just cause
2 Legitimate authority
A state may only go to war if the decision has been taken by appropriate authorities.
3 Right intention
Having a reason to go to war is not enough — it must have a moral motivation. Reasons for going to war include the following:
■ civil war
■ for the sake of religion
■ in self-defence
■ pre-emptive strikes
■ revolution
■ to avenge a wrong
■ to defend other states
■ to kill and rob (barbaric wars)
■ to prevent possible aggression in the future
■ to promote colonial expansion
■ to promote commercial interests
■ to protect people from genocide (humanitarian intervention)
■ to retake something wrongfully taken
■ to seek glory in war (wars of chivalry)
■ to seize the land and resources of other countries
These are intentions but while some of them appear valid others might seem wrong. Therefore, right intention must be based on more solid ethical grounds than just our intuitions.
Augustine said that just wars should be waged with the intention of achieving peace with God’s help.
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) argued that the right intention principle was too subjective. However, In 1983 the US Catholic bishops said that good intentions in the use of force should aim at achieving a just cause, which is ‘confronting a real and certain danger’.
4 Likelihood of success
Deaths and injuries which occur in a hopeless cause cannot be morally justified.
5 Proportionality
Something can only be proportional in relation to something else. It would be disproportionate for a nation to start a war because a few drunken soldiers crossed a border, for example. It might be proportional when a relatively strong nation is attacked by an equally strong nation.
The principles of likelihood of success and proportionality are different, but they both have regard to taking everyone’s consequences into account and they are both difficult to employ.
6 Last resort
Force can only be justified as a last resort when all other means of resolution have been tried.
However, last resort can often be risky. For example, an unjust peace may be preferred to the horrors of war, while at other times it may be viewed as a sign of weakness.
Just War theory states that all six of these criteria must be met for any declaration of war to be justified. They are a mixture of deontological and consequential requirements.
Jus in bello
Jus in bello refers to justice during a war. These rules are found in Greek warfare, when there were a number of unwritten rules covering things such as ransoming prisoners of war, pursuing a defeated enemy, and that battles should only be fought during the campaigning season (the summer).
The rules of jus in bello are as follows.
1 Proportionality
This refers to soldiers using only proportional force to achieve the end they seek. The evil of war has to be weighed against the good results gained by war.
The principle of proportionality here is easy enough to understand, but it is difficult to employ in actual situations: war is uncertain and rational calculations are very difficult to make.
To most people the use of nuclear weapons on a large scale would be seen as violating the principle of proportionality. It could lead to major damage to the environment and health issues for both present and future generations.
2 Discrimination and non-combatant immunity
Those who are fighting have an obligation to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate targets, and between innocent civilians and those involved in fighting.
In recent years this has focused on noncombatant immunity. However, civilian casualties (in particular children) have been a common feature in the last 100 years. This is often described as ‘collateral damage’ as some sort of justification.
Another difficulty is deciding who is a non-combatant. Soldiers who are taken as prisoners of war are no longer combatants, nor are wounded soldiers.
Grotius wrote that if state A is justly fighting against state B, then everyone in state A is innocent and all those in state B are guilty of aggression. Most people would now regard this as too simplistic.
Robert Holmes (professor of philosophy at the University of Rochester) has suggested that people should be categorised depending on their involvement in the war:
■ initiators: the government or leaders
■ agents: military commanders and the combatants
■ contributors: people who work in munitions, military research or propaganda (this might also include taxpayers)
■ people who approve of the war without actually promoting it
■ people who do not contribute to or support the war: children, the elderly, people in mental institutions or prisoners
This analysis also has flaws, as it does not consider groups such as conscripts or child soldiers.
The use of nuclear weapons is also a matter for discrimination, as are landmines. However, the principle of discrimination provides guidance on approaching modern methods of warfare, including terrorism. This is always aimed at non-combatants, and puts pressure on governments to yield to the terrorists’ demands.
3 Obey all international laws on weapons
The Council of Narbonne (1054) ruled that there were certain days on which fighting could not take place. The Lateran Council (1139) banned crossbows, bows and arrows and siege machines. Biological and chemical weapons are forbidden by many treaties. There are not as clear prohibitions on nuclear weapons but in their use the principle of proportionality would dominate.
4 Fair treatment of prisoners of war
It is wrong to torture or mistreat prisoners of war, as they no longer pose a threat. The Geneva Convention states that they should be kept in benevolent quarantine until the war ends, when they should be exchanged.
5 No means malum in se
Soldiers may not use weapons or methods of warfare which are malum in se, or ‘evil in themselves’, such as rape, genocide or ethnic cleansing.
6 No reprisals
Country A violates jus in bello while at war with country B. Country B retaliates with its own violation trying to make country A obey the rules. Reprisals do not appear to work.
Jus in bello also requires a state to respect the rights of its own citizens, even though it is engaged in war. This should include issues such as conscription and censorship of the press.
Jus post bellum
Jus post bellum is justice during the ending of war and help in moving from war to peace.
1 Proportionality
The peace treaty should be reasonable and should not be designed to cause humiliation such as unconditional surrender.
2 Discrimination
A distinction needs to be made between the leaders, the soldiers and the civilians in the defeated country. Civilians should be protected, which rules out any economic sanctions after the war.
3 Rights vindication
The settlement should secure the rights to life and liberty, territory and sovereignty. This should mean that the war and peace treaty would actually have a good effect on the country.
4 Punishment
Leaders of an oppressive regime who are involved in human-rights violations should face international war crimes tribunals.
In addition, soldiers from all sides of the conflict should also be held accountable for their actions.
5 Compensation
It may be necessary to provide financial restitution so that the defeated country can repair its infrastructure: roads, transport links, hospitals and schools.
6 Rehabilitation
Once a war is over there is an ideal chance to reform a country. This may include: disarmament, rehabilitation of the military, retraining of police, working with local people on new constitutions, education, helping people to see that the new order is better than the old, and leaving the new regime to govern its own affairs.
Jus post bellum requires time. It cannot take place overnight or even in a few years, but it can be achieved in the end.
Just War theory is old, but it provides rules to guide decision makers. It aims to make sure that wars only happen if they are just and that they are fought in a responsible and controlled way and that the dispute is ended justly.
Strengths of Just War theory
■ Just War theory defines the conditions under which violence may be used and it combines the wisdom of philosophers from many centuries.
■ It is flexible, and grows and develops with the times.
■ It allows the defence of the defenceless.
■ It does not permit acts of war simply because they are thought to be in the interest of one nation.
■ It recognises that sometimes action against an aggressor is a necessity.
■ Weapons of mass destruction may be changing Just War theory, but we still need to consider their use within a moral framework.
■ Just War theory remains a universal theory.
Weaknesses of Just War theory
■ Just War theory says that violence is sometimes permitted, but morality must always oppose any deliberate violence.
■ It can be seen as unrealistic, as the strong and powerful will always win.
■ Many wars are only considered just in hindsight.
■ Terrorism demands a different approach, as terrorists take no notice of the rules.
■ The conditions are in some ways too simplistic and ambiguous to apply in practice.
■ Weapons of mass destruction demand a different approach, as they break all the basic rules.
Realism
Realists appreciate the horrors of war and try to assess its costs. However, they also look at war in terms of its benefits. War can sometimes give a state extra land or resources.
Realists would argue that war is a nonmoral activity and while actions such as killing, maiming or stealing may be wrong when performed by individuals, they cannot be applied to nations in times of war.
Realists give a number of reasons in support of their viewpoint:
■ There is no real moral authority over nations telling them how to act.
■ A nation has to look after its own interests in order to survive.
■ War and even the threat of war mean that any nation must act in its own interest.
However, even if realists do not accept moral principles, they can still act in line with them, as it is often more practical to do so (e.g. treat prisoners of war well). In addition, a nation often cannot afford to alienate a nation that does not follow the Just War principles. Realists also say that it is important to protect the state’s citizens.
For realists, ethics and war do not mix.
Christian realism
Reinhold Niebuhr’s (1892–1971) Christian realism was very influential in the USA. Niebuhr believed that war was evil but might be necessary to oppose greater evils. He argued that sometimes Christians have to support the use of force to contain evil.
This ‘OCR special’ is the responsibility of RELIGIOUS STUDIES REVIEW and has been neither provided nor approved by OCR.