hello my name is gina johnson and i'm a professor of political science at george fox university in this lecture i'll introduce you to the tenets of just war tradition and will use this tradition to evaluate two important questions in international relations first is violence against injustice and aggression ever moral in other words is it okay to go to war to stop an aggressor or to right or wrong and second if we determine that there is a moral basis for war how can we ensure that war is conducted justly importantly as professor mark hall and co-author j darrell charles point out in their edited book america and the just war tradition the tradition of just war does not argue that war or coercive force can ever be perfectly just instead it assumes a sort of relative justice the idea that war might be justified or morally defensible most scholars credit the origins of the just war tradition to saint augustine who viewed it as a christian's responsibility to restore order and maintain justice so that god's purpose for the world might be realized i'll introduce two groups of criteria in the just war tradition in this lecture the first is a use ad bellum which guides thinking about when it is appropriate to go to war the second group of criteria is use in bello which offers guidance regarding proper conduct in war both categories are important for answering our original questions is war or coercive force ever morally acceptable and if so how can it be applied in a just fashion as i review these two groups of criteria i'll discuss how decisions to go to war are made in the international arena and i'll conclude by using just for tradition to evaluate a new method of waging war the use of drones in warfare how do we determine when it is appropriate to go to war in other words what makes a war just there are three primary criteria first the war must have a right cause which is traditionally considered either to be rectifying an injustice or preventing further injustice of course you might have immediately noted that this criteria is overly broad anyone who wants to use violence to defeat an enemy can likely find some area in which their enemy is committing an injustice especially in the realm of state politics so an important secondary condition is that the response in this case war must be proportionate to the injustice committed given the loss of life involved in war award or rectify injustices in another country's voting or labor laws would likely be widely seen as unjust however a war to stop gross violations of human rights such as genocide would likely be widely viewed as a just war but even this latter example could be subject to debate especially if two further criteria are not met the second criteria that must be met in order to determine the acceptability of war under the just war tradition is that of proper authority the proper government authority must declare and wage war and must do so with improper limits that represent interests and matters of state in other words the public figures responsible for declaring war must not use that power to serve private interests this relates to our third primary criteria right intention as hall and charles note a quote unjust war is perhaps best illustrated by what does not constitute right intention such scenarios include a sovereign's pride or reputation vengeance national aggrandizement blood thirst or lust for power and territorial expansion many critics of the 2003 u. s led war in iraq argued that the bush administration waged the war in an effort to get revenge on saddam hussein for an attempt on the life of george bush senior if this were the case the 2003 iraq war would not qualify as a just war a few secondary criteria are also important to mention briefly a just war should be fought as a last resort after an opportunity has been made for the aggressor or perpetrator to make reparations and the war effort must have a reasonable chance of success and it must have future peace as its goal to review a just war is one in which the following criteria are met first the war is fought for a just cause second the decision to go to war is made by the proper authority and third the proper authority has the right intention in going to war a few secondary criteria are also helpful to evaluate the justness of war the violence used is proportional to the injustice committed war is waged as a last resort after an opportunity has been given for the perpetrator to rectify or cease the injustice committed the war effort must have a reasonable chance of success and finally the war must be conducted with future peace as the ultimate objective i want to re-emphasize here that the just or tradition does not suggest that war or coercive force will ever be perfectly just rather the tradition provides a method of evaluating if war is justified are morally defensible while the just war tradition provides guidelines for evaluating the justice of war in reality there are two methods for waging what the international community would call a legitimate or justifiable war here i will be discussing how in practice the international community has theoretically agreed we can evaluate use ad bellum the first is a war fought in self-defense if a country is attacked it's generally seen as legitimate for that country to strike back with whatever force is necessary to defend itself the second method for conducting a justified war is a war authorized by the united nations security council article 24 of the u. n charter gives the security council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security so when an aggressor is identified it's the responsibility of the security council to take any action necessary including and up to the use of force most wars that fall outside of these two parameters self-defense and a security council authorized peace enforcement mission are considered illegal uses of force although there are some exceptions unilateral action or a state waging war on its own is generally only seen as acceptable when the war is fought in self-defense multilateral action when the u.
n security council has authorized a peace enforcement mission as considered the most legitimate method of waging war since it represents a consensus among the major powers regarding what constitutes a threat and how that threat should be managed examples of security council peace enforcement missions include the korean war and the 1991 gulf war the just where tradition can also be useful for determining when humanitarian intervention is morally defensible even if conducted without u. n approval for example should the u. s intervene on humanitarian grounds in china to stop the force sterilization and internment of the uyghur population according to the just for tradition this hypothetical war would likely fail the proportionality test as war with china would likely cost many more innocent lives than it would save additionally it's unlikely that a war with china would contribute to future peace and a case could be made that even with the us's military superiority the war would have a low chance of success in fact it could lead to even more detrimental outcomes for the uyghurs if the chinese government sees them as more of a threat during a time of war so while there's an emerging norm that says humanitarian intervention is legitimate we still need to apply just for principles to determine its justifiability let's move on to discuss justness in waging war or use in bello how should wars be fought many use in bello principles have been incorporated into international treaties including the geneva conventions the united nations charter the nuremberg war crimes trial and the rome statute creating the international criminal court these treaties or conventions codify four primary principles that help guide us in determining how war should be fought the first principle is that of military necessity which says that only those military measures should be used which are necessary for securing the ends of war this principle of military necessity is important for understanding the critique of the us's use of the atomic bomb on japanese cities during world war ii certainly from a just war standpoint the u.
s was justified in defending itself after being attacked but was the use of atomic weapons necessary for this defense those who argue the u. s was justified in using the atomic bomb to decisively end world war ii point to the likelihood of the war dragging on and many more people dying over the long term if this military measure had not been employed the second principle is that of proportionality is the use of force proportional to the military objective to be achieved it would be considered unjust for example to kill an opponent if it is possible to achieve the desired end by only injuring him the third principle is that of distinction discriminating between soldiers and civilians with the goal being to protect rather than harm the latter certainly civilian casualties occur in war but the important important point here is that they are not targeted and military forces should not be used to cause intentional suffering or unnecessary destruction of civilian property the distinction principle is another area in which the us's use of atomic bombs in world war ii can be argued to fail the use in bellow criteria the last principle is that of humanity which proposes that military forces must avoid suffering and the unnecessary destruction of civilian property the burning of vietnamese villages by u. s soldiers in the vietnam war fails the humanity test as does any use of rape as a weapon of war so to review the four principles of justice in war which are codified in a number of international treaties are military necessity proportionality discrimination and humanity next we'll apply using bellow to a contemporary issue that of the use of drones in warfare are drones a permissible means for executing war we don't have international treaties yet governing their use so we must rely on logic and ethics first let's discuss what constitutes a drone a drone refers to any unmanned remotely piloted flying craft it can be as small as a radio controlled toy helicopter or as big as a 32 000 pound 104 million dollar global hawk military drone basically if it flies and the pilot is on the ground it's considered a drone drones have several different functions including surveillance such as providing live feed cameras in fact some can read a milk carton from 60 thousand feet thermal sensors and radar gps and some can act as fake cell phone towers to determine a target's location some benefits of drones include being more fuel efficient allowing for more precise targeting than traditional manned aircrafts reducing soldier casualties and allowing for more patient decision-making given that decision-makers are not in the line of fire in a 2013 article professor brian orrin writes that we can draw from the laws of armed conflict as discussed in the geneva conventions to evaluate the justness of drones as a means of waging war he lists several pros first it saved lives on your own side by removing soldiers from the battlefield the precision allows for discrimination between combatants and civilians as well so they may also save innocent lives and lastly oren notes that drones are more cost effective than forwardly deploying soldiers since the aircraft can be remotely manned but he also points out some important drawbacks for example there are cases of drones missing intended targets although it does not seem that drones are more likely to produce civilian casualties than other more traditional tools of warfare in fact as he points out evidence suggests that they are likely to be better at preventing casualties than other tools we also have to consider what he calls the warrior ethos dilemma can a programmer a world away make ethical decisions when removed from the situation is there a potential for the disproportionate use of violence and that killing is made easier or more secretive as a final potential drawback the author writes that while a pro for drones is the ability to strike targets deep within the territory of a country unwilling or unable to cooperate in the war on terror this ability violates state sovereignty and may involve striking a country we're not at war with in another 2013 article professor eric freiburger identifies the three criteria laid out by the obama administration for justifying the use of drones first a high government official determines that a threat is imminent second capture of the perpetrator is not feasible and third the operation is conducted according to the laws of war he writes however that the obama administration may not have lived up to its own criteria for the just use of drones the first issue involves the determination of an imminent threat is it the right authority and how do we define imminence in the obama administration white paper outlining drone policy it identifies a broader conception of imminence to include a lack of information in other words a high government official could claim an imminent threat even without evidence to support it which would violate the proportionality criteria the next issue is the feasibility of capture drones may not be the true last resort if the government has an interest in determining that capture isn't feasible lastly the author questions whether the administration's use of drones meets the necessity distinction proportionality and humanity dimensions of use in bello we only have the government's word that the drone strikes are military militarily necessary is it possible to have assurance that they are signature strikes in which individuals who fit the profile of a terrorist or combatants may be targeted violating the distinction criteria of eusen billow and lastly a strong hatred of these strikes may threaten a future piece let's address another dilemma that the use of drones presents the use of drones to target americans abroad the obama administration targeted anwar al-awlaki in 2011 even though he had never been charged with a crime the aclu sued the obama administration for violating due process and then filed another suit for the separate killing two weeks later of awlaki's 16 year old son also an american citizen al-awlaki was definitely a bad guy but even bad guys get due process under our constitution to summarize in this lecture we've reviewed the tenets of the just war tradition namely usad billum justice in going to war and use in bello justice in conducting war we used the use ad bellum criteria to evaluate our first question is violence against injustice and aggression ever moral and we used the use envelope criteria to evaluate our second question how can war be conducted justly we've discussed how in practice the international community recognizes the legitimacy of going to war and we've applied these principles of just conduct and war to debate the use of drones and warfare to reiterate we may never achieve perfect justice in decisions regarding war people will die mistakes will be made hindsight is always 20 20.
