“War Theories”
Training Session 7 Jan 2014
Just War Theory (i)
• “Jus ad bellum” - Right to go to War
1. 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
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
Statistically speaking seemed to
work pretty well!
Fails:
NATO/Serbia (2005)
India/Pakistan (Kashmir 1998)
Israel/Lebanon (2006)
Georgia/Russia (2008)
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
OPP
•
• Throw mess around
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
– 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