Just war theory

[shesulsa]

bushidomartialarts posted this video in another thread:

[yt]YpUD7ZT1eTs[/yt]



...which led me to google and investigate the "rules of war by Augustine" and after a few clicks, my search changed to "just war theory."

With all the discussions on war and torture and such, I thought it might make for a good discussion on this board - a melding, if you will, since some of us consider the principles of just war theory in martial arts practicum as core to the purpose of martial arts as a whole. This also carries political and legal implications.

Wiki on Just War Theory:

Criteria of Just War theory

Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war.[11]
[edit] Jus ad bellum

Main article: Jus ad bellum
Just causeThe reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."Comparative justiceWhile there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.Legitimate authorityOnly duly constituted public authorities may wage war.Right intentionForce may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.Probability of successArms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;Last resortForce may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.ProportionalityThe anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality. In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).
[edit] Jus in bello

Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:
DistinctionJust war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians. ProportionalityJust war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality). Military necessityJust war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

I have not included here "Ending a war" - and there are MANY just war theorists listed towards the end of the Wiki entry.

So ... thoughts as to Just War and any potential significance in today's world? Do you think many of these principles have changed?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I confess to being far more pragmatic than that.

There is no right to go to war. That to me is like the right to have weather. War, like weather, exists. Nations act in their own self-interests, including militarily.

Torture is an act which should be evaluated with regard to the usefulness of it. I maintain that it works against the interests of the nation which employs it. In terms of effectiveness and in terms of other factors which all nations consider, such as their image, credibility, and allies amongst other nations. On a personal note, I am against torture on the basis that it is immoral (just my personal feelings, I do not argue this position as an external value).

 

[bushidomartialarts]

So ... thoughts as to Just War and any potential significance in today's world? Do you think many of these principles have changed?

It seems like our whole world has become a bit more practical, as Bill Says. Some examples...

• Marquis of Queensbury rules were once taken kind of seriously.
• Network news used to be a public service, and is now a profit point.
• Business degrees used to include classes on the importance of public service and contribution to the community...those classes are now rare in business colleges.

On the other hand, it seems like established nations go to war less often, and only for more serious reasons. Wars of aggression aren't tolerated in the international community. So perhaps we fight our wars more pragmatically in proportion to the increased severity we demand to go to war in the first place.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The concept of 'rights' is intertwined with appeal to authority. A person has rights - which are observed or respected (or not, as the case may be) by the agency that has authority over them. In the case of temporal authority, we are talking about governments. In the case of spiritual authority, we are talking about a Creator if one believes in that sort of thing. There are no rights in any other respect; they exist only in the sense that they are recognized.

This applies to nations as well - or it would if there were an agency which had authority over nations. There is none such. One might argue that the United Nations is an attempt in that direction, but it intentionally does not exist as an agency with authority over other nations; members and non-members alike are free to ignore UN resolutions or to observe them as it suits them. The same can be said in some sense for organizations such as the International Court of Justice and similar things; their authority is extant only to the extent that it is observed voluntarily.

One cannot then say that a nation can have the right to go to war - or even the right to refuse to go to war. Unless one is speaking of moral rights, but when we make that assertion, we appeal to the spiritual authority again. And one does have to be a believer in an ultimate judge of men and nations to believe in a Creator with that authority.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

There are no rights in any other respect; they exist only in the sense that they are recognized.

But isn't it equally valid to say that "rights" refused by authority is one of main points in any revolution or other civil uprising? Seems to me that "rights" are more of a theoretical ideal than part of realpolitik as you suggest. The rub of society boils down to how many rights the citizenry (or organization) can force the powers to recognize.

Even unrecognized, the concept of basic rights remains.

 

[billc]

On Torture:

this is an article about Colonel Bud Day, a roommate of John McCains at the hanoi hilton who was also tortured by the north vietnamese. He disagrees with the opinion that waterboarding is torture, he is also one who would know.

From wikipedia:

Bud Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George E. Day
Born February 24, 1925 (age 86)

Col. Day in dress uniform.
Nickname Bud
Place of birth Sioux City, Iowa
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Air Force
United States Army
United States Marine Corps
Years of service 1942 - 1945 (Marine Corps)
1945 - 1950 (Army)
1950 - 1977 (Air Force)
Rank Colonel
Battles/wars World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Awards Medal of Honor
Air Force Cross
Air Force Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star
Legion of Merit
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star (4) with Combat "V"
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Purple Heart (4)
Air Medal (10)
Prisoner of War Medal
Other work Author, Return with Honor
Partner, Day and Meade Law Firm
George Everette "Bud" Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War, to include five years and seven months as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam. He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. service member since General Douglas MacArthur, having received some seventy decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of the Medal of Honor, and is the only person ever awarded both the Medal of Honor and the Air Force Cross.

http://kewaunee.wisgop.info/2009/05/...-from-bud-day/

The words of an American Hero:

Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared to the world that we (U.S.) are a bunch of torturers. Thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they catch us….because that is what the U.S. does.

Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that pouring a little water on some one’s face, or hanging a pair of womens pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.

I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness who was also in my sq in jail, as was John McCain, and we agree that McCain does not speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture, or that “water boarding” is torture.

Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing our great country are a disgrace to the United States. Please pass this info on to Sean Hannity. He is free to use it to point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding, which has no after effect, is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC…hurrah for the guy who poured the water.

BUD DAY, MOH
________