Just war theory
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 28

Just War Theory PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 74 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

Download Presentation

Just War Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Just war theory

Just War Theory


Origins of the just war theory

Origins of the Just War Theory

  • Western Origin

  • Developed over time

  • Romans affirmed right-authority and proportionality

  • Influenced by Christianity

  • Late middle ages before concept is completed and incorporated


Just war theory1

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


Just war criteria rightness or justice in going to war

Just War Criteria:Rightness or Justice in going to War

  • Just Cause

  • Competent Authority

  • Comparative Justice

  • Right Intention

  • Last Resort

  • Probability of Success

  • Proportionality of Ends


Just war criteria rightness or justice in prosecuting war

Just War Criteria:Rightness or Justice in Prosecuting War

  • Proportionately of means

  • Discrimination/non-combatant immunity


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


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 20th Century

  • De-emphasis of Sovereignty; Thinking in terms beyond the nation state

  • Creation of League of Nations

  • Kellogg-Brian Pact of 1928

  • Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal

  • United Nations

    • the legal basis for use of force is found in the UN charter


Article 2 section 4

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”


Article 51

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

  • Reluctance to act until the number of victims reaches staggering proportions

  • Sovereignty rights are more important than prevention of genocide

  • Stems from lack of sanctions in the international community


Legalist paradigm

Legalist Paradigm

  • Concept of Michael Walzer in Just and Unjust Wars

  • Based on international laws, treaties, and provisions of UN

  • Only one reason for fighting; Defense of Rights

  • 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


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

    • Emergence 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


Doctrine to intervention

Doctrine to Intervention

  • Force used to deter terrorist acts in Libya

  • Fall of the Soviet Union

  • Successful intervention in Grenada


Problems with weinberger

Appeal to National Interests

Commit force wholeheartedly

Stating Clear Objectives

Relationship between Objectives and Forces

Public Support

Last Resort

What are they and who decides them?

Flawed Constitutionally

Hard to define, articulate, and legitimize

Not enough forces to deal with a range of potential interests

Always precarious in democracy

May be much easier and save lives if done earlier

Problems with Weinberger


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 creates problems;

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


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.


Just war theory

Was the relationship between objectives and our forces continually reassessedand 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


Apply to bosnia

Apply to Bosnia

  • National Interests

  • Wholeheartedly Involvement

  • Defined Goals and Objectives

  • Continually Reassessed

  • Public Support

  • Last Resort


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?


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

Apply

  • 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


Conduct of war

Conduct of War

Ethics for the Military Leader, 2nd edition

pages 411-472

Fundamentals of Naval Leadership

pages 25-1 to 25-27, and 27-1 to 27-3

Ethics and Moral Reasoning for Military Leaders

Lesson 21: pages 21-9 to 21-32

Case Study: pages 21 to 57


  • Login