Ventaraman Prabhu, Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati. Moral decline in the ethical deliberation of war is thus discussed in the discrepancies of justice before, during, and after war.
Conclusion 78
Introduction
- Introduction
- Historical development of JW theory
- Thesis outline
- Research Objectives
- Research Methodology
The ethnocentrism of the ancient Egyptians included a belief in the cosmic role of the pharaoh and the land of Egypt. An important focus of the chapter is the claim that human nature is closely related to the causes of war.
War: Just-War Theory context
Introduction
Schematic organization of JWT
- Narrow schema
- Broader Schema
But one of the occasions when contingent pacifists accept war is in the case of Just War (Fiala, 2014). Just-war theory, an obligation that justifies the means of violence (Cox, 2018), thus developed as an attempt to limit war as war became rationally justifiable (Bishops, 1984).
Justice: Ethical Underpinning of JWT
Introduction
Justice: Underlying conception of JW
- Conceptual analysis of Justice
- Justice: A Unifying theme of JW
- Interplay of Justice in social interaction
- Criticism
The claim that just war as a theory is intricately linked to the concept of justice must begin with the analysis of the concept. Expansion on the discussion of Justice as the underlying idea of JW is stated in the following. Augustine (354 AD) hardly believed in the possibility and justifiability of just war, including that of their time (May, 2015), they justifies war for the cause of justice.
In The Republic, the idea of Justice advanced by Thrasymachus existed in the interests of the stronger. The earliest conception of justice is found in the works of the early Pythagoreans (600-400 BC). Yet just war as a theory is embedded in the concept of justice that claims legal recourse to violence.
As such, Hugo holds individuals, rulers, and nations firmly accountable to the standard of justice.
Introduction
Jus ad bellum justification of war
- Just cause
- Traditionalists definition of war
- Revisionists criticism
- Right Intention
- Problem of moral indifference: Neglect of “Right Intention” in MJWT
- Legitimate Authority
- Problem of obligation
- Proportionality and Necessity
- Realistic fortuitous for success
While making just war requires a just cause (Vorster, 2015; Solomon, 1996), some causes of war are influenced by respect for what is useful, others motivated by what is just (Grotius, 2006). Although modern just war discourse (MJW) began to sidestep the criterion of just intent in favor of just cause and authority, this study emphasizes the sufficiency of "just intent" in determining the moral justifiability of a war. In contemporary just war thinking (CJW), while the interdependence of just cause with other valid jus ad bellum criteria is often emphasized, just intent is also considered as the subjective element responsible for the justification of war is often overlooked.
MJWT's consideration of the sufficiency of "just cause" over "right intent" also came about through the separation of right intent and just cause. While the standards of just cause and right intent became separated in modern just war discourse, this was not the case in traditional JWT. The importance of right intent to cause just war can also be seen in traditional thinking in its emphasis on inculcating higher virtues in the context of military art.
The inadequacy with respect to the just war criteria of "just cause" is further apparent in the case of "authority" for reasons of ambiguity.
Introduction
- Development of “jus in bello” concept
In the historical account, the Orthodox narrative contrasted international humanitarian law (IHL) with the rules of warfare. IHL refers to the current understanding of ius in bello – the rules governing the conduct of combatants during combat. This is evident in the "confident use of the term 'IHL' to describe all laws of war" (Meron, 2000).
The study does, however, point to some inconsistencies in the jus in bello state of just-war thinking. In addition to the double effect, the infiltration of these principles and thus of jus in bello concern is observed in the idea of total war. In the last part, the work deals with the compromise of jus in bello morality and the legality of war.
Compromise of jus in bello morality and legality of warfare occurred with the separation of morality of warfare from the domain of legal inquiry.
Theoretical problem of jus in bello: Self-contradictory nature of JW
- Principle of Discrimination
- Problem of “Double-Effect” and “Total War”
- Principle of Proportionality
- Necessity principle
The principle also aims to ensure the protection of civilians living in enemy-occupied territory (Solomon, 1996). The concept of total war was not institutionalized during World War I until the term "home front" came into use. Another reason regarding moral indifference in a modern just war, the allegation, lies in the failure to observe the "principle of proportionality".
Just War under the provision of double effect may even exclude punishment from the crime of spilling as a result of inadvertent injury. According to the principle of proportionality in the just war tradition, "killing in self-defense becomes illegal only when the measures used are out of proportion to the end". The moral basis described in Article 57 of the Geneva Convention is adapted in the recent theory of just war (Lazar, 2017).
Preventive killing is therefore an act born from the desire to be freed from fear.
Non-combatant Immunity and Military Intervention
The study therefore claims that any compromise on this concern could invalidate the entire purpose of Just-War. Narrative on the historical development of IHL presents the modification of laws of war to make them more human-centered; another traced this development to a story of imperialism and oppression. The story of HIL thus tells the trumping of violence of war or military, and Western needs and the subsequent legitimization of suffering over human values (Gardam, 2001).
Consequently, such pragmatic and compromised approaches "left military necessity unchallenged as the overriding value of the laws of war" and thus left civilians more vulnerable than ever to the scourge of battle (Chris & Roger, 1994, p. 76). Several other contradictions of IHL include the failure of The Nuremberg Tribunal which actually helped to legitimate unrestricted action in war by refusing to convict, or even prosecute, based on violations of the laws of war (p.66) . It is claimed that these compromises are associated with the theoretical problem of jus in bello ethical conditions of just war.
This study further argues that a compromise in just war intentions has resulted in the contradictory nature of Just-War Theory and the endorsement of unjust killing.
Jus in bello compromise of morality and legality of warfare
- Separation of morality from Jurisprudence
- Agreement signed between warring parties that are alien
- Political Realism
According to traditional contractors, the objective of combatants is to protect non-civilians. The separation of morality from jurisprudence, the philosophy of law, occurred when legal positivists divided traditional philosophy, which deals with the ideal aspect of legal standards, into the realm of moral and political philosophy. In modern times, the separation of morality from legal inquiry has become successful with the erosion of the medieval worldview of natural law.
Hugo's conception of the laws of nature as binding in nature is affirmed by the belief that God Himself enforces the laws. Today, although war conventions are intended to prosecute violations and war criminals, by which lawyers could limit some forms of war, this was not the case in the past. Plato in the Republic recognized aggression fueled by hatred and self-indulgence19 in the sources as the cause of unjust engagement of Greeks during war against non-Greeks, whom they consider enemies by nature.
In this context, the paper evaluates the violation of morality and legality of jus in bello war rules and deals with the compromise in the problem of moral indifference in the modern theory of just war.
Introduction
Theoretical framework
- Jus post bellum vindication of human rights
- Equal justice at the end of war
- Research gap
- Objective
The available literature on JW also reveals the connection between JWT and human rights as a solid foundation of jus post bellum. Human rights as a solid foundation of jus post bellum believe that the enforcement of human rights and the prosecution of their violation are essential to the establishment of a just peace at the end of war. Prominent thinkers of the human rights approach to JW include Michael Joseph Smith (1997), Michael Walzer (2000), Robert E Williams and Dan Caldwell (2006).
JW's concern for the justification of human rights aims at just peace at the end of the war. Consequently, JW advocates for the vindication of human rights that have been violated (Williams & Dan, 2006). Other essential aspects of the redress of human rights after time include the return to a pre-existing condition before war.
This human rights approach to equality post bellum tends to dissolve human rights and human security for national security (Smith, 1997; Walzer, 2000).
Discussion
To evaluate the jus post bellum state and associated discrepancies that could have disrupted post-bellum concern for the justification of human rights and just prosecution for violations.
6. 3.1 Intricate relationship between the three conditions of JW
- Justice post war in “Right-Intention” and “Proportionality Principle”
- Compromise of “Proportionality Principle” and “Right- Intention” criterion MJWT fails to observe proportionality principle on account of moral indifference
- Categories of crimes based on “Intention"
- War crimes, International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Court International Humanitarian Law (IHL) also known as the law of warfare was codified to
- Crime of Genocide
- Crimes against humanity
- War Crimes
- Dangers of neglecting “Right-Intention” and “Proportionality Principle"
Therefore, postbellum justice in the aftermath of war requires the synthesis of the right criterion of intention and the principle of proportionality. Criteria for right intent, in turn, aim to ensure that the punishment sanctioned is consistent with the nature of the crime committed. Since transgression is to deliberately violate the established rules of the law, it is a presumptuous sin [J.
Part (a) of war crimes includes the crime committed in violation of the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. Contrary to the just war criteria of just purpose and proportionality is the unjust practice of war. This state of conflict where "everything is against everyone" was resolved in the formation of the state.
Cicero justified war when the just war criterion of "just aim" is not fairly observed.
Conclusion
As such, the search for JW's underlying theme presents "justice" as the underlying concept of JWT. Justice as the ideal of JWT is thus seen in the three conditions of JW - all aimed at justice at different stages. Due to the declining state of war discourses and the compromise of JW's pursuit of the proper use of force.
Evaluation of post-war justice reveals an intricate relationship between the three conditions of JW and therefore of the claim that the post-war judicial decision rests on the jus ad bellum criterion of "proper intention" and on the "proportionality principle" of jus in bello. Further evaluation of the three conditions of JW reveals a complete overlap between the conditions of proper intention and the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the confirmation of the claim that all three conditions for JW are necessary and for that reason must synergistically work together for the achievement of justice after the war.
Therefore, evaluation of the three JW conditions reveals a correlation that is uniquely applicable to the three conditions and to the JW goal in general.
Research Output
The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response' Pastoral Letter on War and Peace by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States. Retrieved from International Committee of the Red Cross: www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/overview-war-and-law.htm. The International Committee of the Red Cross and its contribution to the development of international humanitarian law in specialized instruments.
Retrieved January 2, 2022, from How Many People Died in World War II?: https://www.historyonthenet.com/how-many-people-died-in-world-war-2. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN https://iep.utm.edu/just-war-theory. Retrieved from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:. https://iep.utm.edu/pacifism.
