“War Theories”

Training Session 7 Jan 2014

Just War Theory (i)

• “Jus ad bellum” - Right to go to War1. Just Cause

2. Last Resort

3. Declared by Legitimate Authority

4. Right Intention

5. Reasonable Chance of Success

6. End Proportional to Means

Just War Theory (ii)

• “Jus in bello” – Right conduct within War– Discrimination• Who are legitimate targets of war?

– Proportionality• How much force is appropriate?

– Responsibility• Maintaining responsibility amongst soldiers

Just War Theory (iii)

• “Jus post bellum”– Compensation– Rehabilitation– Punishment

Realism

• Moral concepts should not be employed neither as descriptions of, nor as prescriptions for, state behaviour on the int. scene.

• War ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest; and that, once war has begun, a state ought to do whatever it can to win.

• Descriptive realism = States do not (for reasons of motivation) and cannot (for reasons of competitive struggle) behave morally

• Prescriptive realism = States ought to behave amorally in the int. arena

Pacifism

• Jenny Teichman: “anti-war-ism”• Two kinds to consider: – (1) A more consequentialist form of pacifism which

maintains that the benefits accruing from war can never outweigh the costs of fighting it;

– And (2) a more deontological form of pacifism which contends that the very activity of war is intrinsically wrong, since it violates foremost duties of justice, such as not killing human beings.

Consequentialism

• “The ends justify the means”• It does not matter what actions we take in

terms of their morality as long as they have the consequences we want.

Golden Arches Peace Theory

Statistically speaking seemed to work pretty well!

Fails:

NATO/Serbia (2005)

India/Pakistan (Kashmir 1998)

Israel/Lebanon (2006)

Georgia/Russia (2008)

No two countries with McDonalds in them will go to war

-Level of Economic Development; Middle Class to support McDonald’s Network

-Symbol of economic interdependence

Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention

“No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.”

Nations are unwilling to risk the employment generated by globalization, and don’t fight.

Use to argue why economic ties are a positive; e.g. in sanctions debates

Examples:

India/Pakistan Nuclear Standoff

Taiwan/China

?

Democratic Peace Theory

Democracies almost never fight with each other – lack of any real wars between real democracies in 20th C

-Normative Reasons

-Structural Reasons

Argue that promoting democracy has broader benefits to protecting the security of existing democratic

nations

(democratic crusade)

1) Other explanations; e.g. political similarity

2) Just a matter of time

3) Promoting democracy can backfire – increase conflict

Debating about Invasions / Assassinations etc

PROP• Establish Imperative

– Identify a tipping point (why we can’t wait)

– Last Resort (all other options have been tried)

• Provide clear mechanism – Outline a military strategy that will work

• Initial conflict• Continuing conflict (insurgency?)

– Include amnesty option for combatants / suggest won’t fight

• Show path to a better future– Reconstruction efforts?– Who will take power afterwards?

• Creates important positive precedents

OPP• Throw mess around

– War is never clean or simple

• Civilians & Soldiers will die– Responsibility on our hands

• Show how will mobilise opposition

• EVEN IF invasion works– Show most likely scenario will be

at best sub-optimal and most likely even worse than to start

• Undermines precedents of international law