The Use and Limits of Military Force

1. The Use and Limits of Military Force Dr. Martin L. Cook Stockdale Professor of Professional Military Ethics United States Naval War College Newport, RI

2. Disclaimer The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker. They do not represent the official policy or position of the United States Navy, the Naval War College, or the Government of the United States of America

3. Reasons to Use Military Force “Self Defense”/Defense of the Nation in practice means many things • Response to aggression and domestic insurrection • (Original just war justification - and increasingly rare, especially for major powers) • Aid to Allies in their response to aggression • Pursuit of “national interests” • Humanitarian assistance to other nations • Protection of rights and lives of foreign national (Responsibility to Protect) 3

4. Ethical Tension between Universality and Particularity • Most religious and philosophical ethics are universalistic and recognize the equal moral worth and dignity of every human being • Military power, however, is possessed by particular communities (since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, by nation-states) • Leaders of individual nations have fiduciary responsibility primarily (exclusively?) to their own citizens and nation - to protect their interests, independence and resources 4

5. Focus on Fiduciary Responsibility One should only use one’s nation’s resources for national interest of one’s own nation • To do otherwise is unethical because the leaders making those decisions represent that nation and its interests • Other uses of the military break the implicit “contract” between the nation and its military - your lives and national treasure will only be sacrificed for our nation • Some humanitarian missions might still be defended on these grounds (e.g., stemming refugee flows), but the justifications must be narrowly framed 5

6. Focus on Universal Ethics(R2P Criteria) • A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities). • If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions. • If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force 6

7. Is this an “Ought”?Does “Ought” imply “Can”? • Where does the capability to intervene come from? • Is it ethically obligatory for states to maintain robust capability to meet R2P demands? • How to reconcile “ought” with diminishing budgets, personnel, capabilities • Uneven capability in the world even now • How to square this “ought” with national fiduciary responsibility? 7

8. Implication for the US of Resetting the Force • Force/Capabilities of all US forces will be diminishing • Libya operation - implications for R2P? • “Leading from behind” strategy • Indication of NATO capabilities even now for R2P operations • Political implications of NATO’s “stretching” of the US mandate to protect civilians for future Security Council deliberations 8

9. Presentations and Discussion Dr. Brian Orend University of Waterloo Dr. Paul Robinson University of Ottawa