Does just war theory need to get with the times?

La théorie de la guerre juste a fournit les principes qui forment la base de nos intuitions concernant l’éthique de la guerre pendant plus de milles ans. Cependant, la nature de la guerre a changé drastiquement dans les derniers 50 ans. Avec les avancés technologiques, tous les aspects de la guerre, du champ de bataille aux armes utilisées, sont aujourd’hui très différents. Ce qui est proposé dans ce texte est que les principes de jus in bello sont malgré tout encore adéquats pour les guerres contemporaines. Spécifiquement, en utilisant une analyse historique, ce texte argumentera contre la condition de l’urgence suprême de Michael Walzer pour proposer une approche qui laisse les principes de bases du jus in bello intactes. Ce texte suggère que les théoriciens de la guerre juste se penchent sur la question des armes prohibées pour avoir un impacte positif dans le domaine de l’éthique de la guerre.

Gaddafi and Libya : a case for just intervention?

Full militaristic intervention cannot be justified on the grounds that this is a ‘just war’. We are then left with the option to intervene militarily in a smaller way or not to intervene militarily at all.

Dying for 'Enduring Freedom': Accepting Responsibility for Civilian Casualties in the War against Terrorism

Wheeler, Nicholas, 'Dying for `Enduring Freedom': Accepting Responsibility for Civilian Casualties in the War against Terrorism', International Relations (2002) 16(2) pp.205-225 RAE2008

Supreme Emergencies and the protection of non-combatants in war

Is it ever justifiable to target non-combatants deliberately? This article assesses Michael Walzer's claim that the deliberate targeting of non-combatants may be justifiable during 'supreme emergencies', a view that has received some support but that has elicited little debate. It argues that the supreme emergencies exception to the prohibition on targeting non-combatants is problematic for at least four reasons. First, its utilitarianism contradicts Walzer's wider ethics of war based on a conception of human rights. Second, the exception may undermine the principle of non-combatant immunity. Third, it is based on a historical fallacy. Finally, it is predicated on a strategic fallacy-the idea that killing noncombatants can win wars. The case for rejecting the exception, however, has been opposed by those who persuasively argue that it is wrong to tie leaders' hands when they confront supreme emergencies. The final part of the article addresses this question and suggests that the principle of proportionality may give political leaders room for manoeuvre in supreme emergencies without permitting them deliberately to target non-combatants.

Trading democracy for security? The effects of the international drug war on the quality of democracy in the Dominican Republic, 1996–2008

The purpose of the research is to study the relationship between international drug interdiction policies and domestic politics in fragile democracies, and to demonstrate how international drug control policies and the use of force fit the rhetoric of war, are legitimized by the principles of a just war, but may also cause collateral damage and negative unintended consequences. The method used is a case study of the Dominican Republic. The research has found that international drug control regimes, primarily led by the U.S. and narrowly focused on interdiction, have influenced an increasingly militarized approach to domestic law enforcement in the Dominican Republic. The collateral damage caused by militarized enforcement comes in the form of negative perceptions of citizen security, loss of respect for the rule of law and due process, and low levels of civil society development. The drug war has exposed the need for significant reform of the institutions charged with carrying out enforcement, the police force and the judicial system in particular. The dissertation concludes that the extent of drug trafficking in the Dominican Republic is beyond the scope of domestic reform efforts alone, but that the programs implemented do show some potential for future success. The dissertation also concludes that the framework of warfare is not the most appropriate for the international problems of drug traffic and abuse. A broader, multipronged approach should be considered by world policy makers in order to address all conditions that allow drugs to flourish without infringing upon democratic and civil rights in the process.

Trading Democracy for Security? The Effects of the International Drug War on the Quality of Democracy in the Dominican Republic, 1996 -2008

The purpose of the research is to study the relationship between international drug interdiction policies and domestic politics in fragile democracies, and to demonstrate how international drug control policies and the use of force fit the rhetoric of war, are legitimized by the principles of a just war, but may also cause collateral damage and negative unintended consequences. The method used is a case study of the Dominican Republic. The research has found that international drug control regimes, primarily led by the U.S. and narrowly focused on interdiction, have influenced an increasingly militarized approach to domestic law enforcement in the Dominican Republic. The collateral damage caused by militarized enforcement comes in the form of negative perceptions of citizen security, loss of respect for the rule of law and due process, and low levels of civil society development. The drug war has exposed the need for significant reform of the institutions charged with carrying out enforcement, the police force and the judicial system in particular. The dissertation concludes that the extent of drug trafficking in the Dominican Republic is beyond the scope of domestic reform efforts alone, but that the programs implemented do show some potential for future success. The dissertation also concludes that the framework of warfare is not the most appropriate for the international problems of drug traffic and abuse. A broader, multipronged approach should be considered by world policy makers in order to address all conditions that allow drugs to flourish without infringing upon democratic and civil rights in the process.

Voiko sota olla oikeutettu? : Kirkkojen maailmanneuvoston yleiskokousten kannanotot sotaan kriisien ratkaisuna

Can war be justified? Expressions of opinions by the general assemblies of the World Council of Churches on the question of war as a method of settling conflicts. The purpose of this study is to describe and analyse the expressions of opinions recorded in the documents of the general assemblies of the WCC during the Cold War period from 1948 to 1983 on the use of war as a method of settling international and national conflicts. The main sources are the official reports of the WCC´s assemblies during the years 1948 to 1983. This study divides the discussions into three periods. The first period (1949-1968) is dominated by the pressures arising from the Second World War. Experiences of the war led the assemblies of the WCC to the conclusion that modern warfare as a method of settling conflicts should be rejected. Modern war was contrary to God´s purposes and the whole meaning of creation, said the assembly. Although the WCC rejected modern war, it left open the possibility of conflict where principles of just war may be practised. The question of war was also linked to the state and its function, which led to the need to create a politically neutral doctrine for the socio-ethical thinking of churches and of the WCC itself. The doctrine was formulated using the words "responsible society". The question of war and socio-ethical thinking were on the WCC`s agenda throughout the first period. Another issue that had an influence on the first period was the increasing role of Third World countries. This new dimension also brought new aspects to the question of war and violence. The second period (1968-1975) presented greater challenges to the WCC, especially in traditional western countries. The Third World, political activity in the socialist world and ideas of revolution were discussed. The WCC`s fourth Assembly in Uppsala was challenged by these new ideas of revolution. The old doctrine of "responsible society" was seen by many participants as unsuitable in the modern world, especially for Third World countries. The situation of a world governed by armaments, causing social and economic disruption, was felt by churches to be problematic. The peace movement gathered pace and attention. There was pressure to see armed forces as an option on the way to a new world order. The idea of a just war was challenged by that of just revolution. These ideas of revolution did not receive support from the Uppsala Assembly, but they pressured the WCC to reconsider its socio-ethical thinking. Revolution was seen as a possibility, but only when it could be peaceful. In the Nairobi Assembly the theme of just, participatory and sustainable society provided yet another viewpoint, dealing with the life of the world and its problems as a whole. The third period (1975-1983) introduced a new, alternative doctrine the "JPIC Process", justice, peace and the integrity of creation for social thinking in the WCC. The WCC no longer wanted to discuss war or poverty as separate questions, but wanted to combine all aspects of life to see the impact of an arms-governed world on humankind. Thus, during the last period, discussions focused on socio-ethical questions, where war and violence were only parts of a larger problem. Through the new JPIC Process, the WCC`s Assembly in Vancouver looked for a new world, one without violence, in all aspects of life. Despite differing opinions in socio-ethical thinking, the churches in the WCC agreed that modern warfare cannot be regarded as acceptable or just. The old idea of a "just war" still had a place, but it was not seen by all as a valid principle. As a result the WCC viewed war as a final solution to be employed when all other methods had failed. Such a war would have to secure peace and justice for all. In the discussions there was a strong political east-west divide, and, during the last two decades, a north-south divide as well. The effect of the Cold War was obvious. In the background to the theological positions were two main concepts namely the idea of God´s activity in man´s history through the so-called regiments and, the concept of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Violence in the Medieval Church before the First Crusade

The attitude of the medieval church towards violence before the First Crusade in 1095 underwent a significant institutional evolution, from the peaceful tradition of the New Testament and the Roman persecution, through the prelate-led military campaigns of the Carolingian period and the Peace of God era. It would be superficially easy to characterize this transformation as the pragmatic and entirely secular response of a growing power to the changing world. However, such a simplification does not fully do justice to the underlying theology. While church leaders from the 5th Century to the 11th had vastly different motivations and circumstances under which to develop their responses to a variety of violent activities, the teachings of Augustine of Hippo provided a unifying theme. Augustine’s just war theology, in establishing which conflicts are acceptable in the eyes of God, focused on determining whether a proper causa belli or basis for war exists, and then whether a legitimate authority declares and leads the war. Augustine masterfully integrated aspects of the Old and New Testaments to create a lasting and compelling case for his definition of justified violence. Although at different times and places his theology has been used to support a variety of different attitudes, the profound influence of his work on the medieval church’s evolving position on violence is clear.

Au nom de l'humanité? : histoire, droit, éthique et politique de l'intervention militaire justifiée par des raisons humanitaires

Réalisé en cotutelle avec le Centre de recherches politiques Raymond Aron de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) de Paris, pour un doctorat en études politiques.

La responsabilité de protéger et l’intervention humanitaire : de la reconceptualisation de la souveraineté des États à l’individualisme normatif

La recrudescence des conflits internes dans le contexte post-guerre froide a permis de propulser à l’avant-plan la préoccupation pour les individus. Alors que la paix et la sécurité internationales ont historiquement constitué les piliers du système institutionnel international, une porte s’ouvrait pour rendre effectif un régime de protection des droits de l’homme par-delà les frontières. Pour les humanistes, l’intervention humanitaire représentait un mal nécessaire pour pallier aux souffrances humaines souvent causées par des divergences ethniques et religieuses. Pourtant, cette pratique est encore souvent perçue comme une forme de néo-colonialisme et entre en contradiction avec les plus hautes normes régissant les relations internationales, soit les principes de souveraineté des États et de non-intervention. La problématique du présent mémoire s’inscrit précisément dans cette polémique entre la préséance des droits de l’État et la prédilection pour les droits humains universels, deux fins antinomiques que la Commission internationales pour l’intervention et la souveraineté des États (CIISE) a tenté de concilier en élaborant son concept de responsabilité de protéger. Notre mémoire s’inscrit dans le champ de la science politique en études internationales mais s’articule surtout autour des notions et enjeux propres à la philosophie politique, plus précisément à l’éthique des relations internationales. Le travail se veut une réflexion critique et théorique des conclusions du rapport La responsabilité de protéger, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le critère de la juste cause et, dans une moindre mesure, celui d’autorité appropriée. Notre lecture des conditions de la CIISE à la justification morale du déclenchement d’une intervention humanitaire – critères issues de la doctrine de la guerre juste relativement au jus ad bellum – révèle une position mitoyenne entre une conception progressiste cosmopolitique et une vision conservatrice d’un ordre international composé d’États souverains. D’une part, la commission se dissocie du droit international en faisant valoir un devoir éthique d’outrepasser les frontières dans le but de mettre un terme aux violations massives des droits de l’homme et, d’autre part, elle craint les ingérences à outrance, comme en font foi l’établissement d’un seuil de la juste cause relativement élevé et la désignation d’une autorité multilatérale à titre de légitimateur de l’intervention. Ce travail dialectique vise premièrement à présenter et situer les recommandations de la CIISE dans la tradition de la guerre juste. Ensuite, il s’agit de relever les prémisses philosophiques tacites dans le rapport de la CIISE qui sous-tendent le choix de préserver une règle de non-intervention ferme de laquelle la dérogation n’est exigée qu’en des circonstances exceptionnelles. Nous identifions trois arguments allant en ce sens : la reconnaissance du relativisme moral et culturel; la nécessité de respecter l’autonomie et l’indépendance des communautés politiques en raison d’une conception communautarienne de la légitimité de l’État, des réquisits de la tolérance et des avantages d’une responsabilité assignée; enfin, l’appréhension d’un bouleversement de l’ordre international sur la base de postulats du réalisme classique. Pour finir, nous nuançons chacune de ces thèses en souscrivant à un mode de raisonnement cosmopolitique et conséquentialiste. Notre adhésion au discours individualiste normatif nous amène à inclure dans la juste cause de la CIISE les violations systématiques des droits individuels fondamentaux et à cautionner l’intervention conduite par une coalition ou un État individuel, pourvu qu’elle produise les effets bénéfiques désirés en termes humanitaires.