Reference no: EM132170959

Instruction:

Notes from Instructor:

1. There are two fundamental moral questions about war:

I. Is waging war ever morally justified and if so, who ought to wage it and under what conditions?

II. What are the moral principles, if any, that govern theconduct of those who engage in prosecuting war?

2. Two comments about the scope of the present discussion are in order:

(i) We will only deal with the first question during the present topic, although I wish to emphasize the importance of the second question to the conduct of war;(ii) While admittedly we may identify several types of wars,we will restrict the scope of the first question to what in the modern era constitute wars between sovereigncountries.

3. So we may rephrase question I as follows:

I*. Under what conditions, if any, a sovereign country ismorally justified to wage war against another sovereigncountry?

4. We can distinguish three positions regarding question (I*):

a. Realism: According to a realist position morality doesnot apply to relations among sovereign countries, includingregarding the matter of waging war. International relations

Lupu 1

between countries are governed exclusively by the interestsof each state. Therefore, according to the realist position, the only relevant considerations that need to be assessed bya state regarding waging a war against another state arewhether the interests of the state are better served by a warrather than by other means, the likelihood of victory, andthe cost of the war compared to the expected benefits.

b. Antiwar Pacifism: According to antiwar pacifists sincewar is inherently about killing other human beings andsince all human beings have a right to life, it follows that waging war is immoral even in the case of self-defense.Moreover, antiwar pacifists point out that since it is rarelypossible to anticipate and fully control all the unintendedconsequences of war, the adverse consequences of warmore often than not outweigh the real benefits.

c. Just War Theory: Just war theory is the most acceptedmiddle ground between the previous two extremepositions. Hence, it maintains that some wars are morallyjustified, while others are not. Naturally, such a position is required to specify clear conditions to distinguish morallyjustified wars from those which are not morally justified. The following is a list of conditions each of which isnecessary in order for a war to be morally justified. It is not clear whether according to just war theory the conjunction of these conditions is also sufficient.5. Conditions of Just War Theory. Each of the conditions listedbelow should be read as follows:

X is a morally justified war only if?; where in theblank you enter the condition specified:

i. War is declared by a legitimate authority: A war is justified only if it is declared and waged by legitimategovernment authority of a sovereign nation or nations.

Note: One of the most difficult issues which the above criterionraises is this: What constitutes a legitimate authority and who decides this question? For instance, are we to count unelectedgovernments or governments elected through fraudulentelections or autocracies as legitimate? And who decides thesequestions? It is therefore important to distinguish betweengovernments that are legitimate only insofar as they de-facto hold the reins of power vs. governments that are legitimatebecause the international community views them as representingthe will of their

Lupu 1

people. In reality, the international community often must dealwith de-facto government even if these governments did not obtain power by means recognized as legitimate.

ii. The Cause of War is Just: One clear example of a just reason for a war is self-defense. While there are clear casesof self-defense, many other cases are less clear. For instance, does going to war in order to defend a weakerally against aggression constitute self- defense? Or is preemptive war in some cases justified because it is motivated by self- defense? What about preventive war;i.e., a case where one nation goes to war against anothermerely because it is afraid its rival intends to attack it? Isthere a difference between preemptive-war and the doctrine of preventive-war?

Many just war theoristsconsider humanitarian intervention as a case of a just cause (see Beitz for such an argument).iii. The War is Declared and Waged with RightfulIntentions: i.e., the motive for declaring and waging a warmust be just. Once again there is a serious problem aboutdistinguishing between intentions that are rightful versuswrongful intentions. History is replete with wars in which both sides claimed the moral high ground because theyprofessed just intentions.iiii. The War is a Last Resort: Peaceful alternatives to war, primarily negotiations and other non-violentpressures, must be first exercised before a war is waged.However, what actions are peaceful? For instance, areeconomic sanctions by the international communitypeaceful? What about an economic blockade?v.

Proportionality: The cost and benefits must be assessedwith respect to the potential harm versus the good that is obtained by waging war.vi. Reasonable Possibility of Success: Wars always have acost in human life and material. Therefore, a war should bewaged only if there is a reasonable possibility of success so that the expected benefits are likely to materialize, giventhe enormous cost of war.6. Each of the above conditions raises numerous questions. It is up to you to evaluate whether you think that despite theambiguities and the many questions each condition raises, the just war

Lupu 1

theory is still a morally valuable theory to guide relations among countries with respect to potential conflicts.

7. The above should give you enough material to discern thepositions and arguments of the three authors assigned for thisfinal week. I should perhaps explain why in the last couple ofweeks I have purposefully refrained from outlining the authorson our reading list. My purpose is to force you to use myPreliminary Notes as a guide to discern on your own thepositions and arguments. I think that at this stage of the term youshould have acquired the tools to do so. I hope I am right. GoodLuck!

Assignment:

In this essay I present you with an imaginary scenario. Your task will be to determine a course of action in light of the reading assignments and instructor notes. You must defend your position cogently based upon these readings and your own reasoning.

Scenario: Imagine two neighboring countries A and B. The two countries share a very long border. Country A has plenty of rivers running through it, whereas country B has only one river without which it would become an uninhabitable desert within a few years. The only river that runs through country B crosses a very small portion of country A, a portion adjacent to country B.

Country A decides to divert the river by building a dam and a canal. If allowed to do so, no water would reach country B. You are the head of a legitimately elected government of country B. All your attempts to negotiate a reasonable agreement with country A have failed and no third country is willing to intervene.

(*) You are not allowed to change any of the specific facts stated in the scenario. Any other facts not stated you are allowed to introduce to answer any of the questions.

1. Under the circumstances facing your country, would you attack country A in order to control the source of water and prevent country A from diverting the river?

2. Do you think that such an action would conform to the just war theory? In either case make sure you defend your views with respect to the criteria of a just war theory.

3. How would you respond to Hawk's arguments that favors a pacifist attitude?