Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 4
Just War Theory Reflection
War has tremendous negative effects including trauma that can last generations. However, the intrinsic perspective that war is always wrong is very restrictive and impractical for any society. Similarly, the other extreme, which is consequentialism, leaves very undefined boundaries in a sort of utilitarian “if the outcome is just” perspective. It is impossible to gauge how valuable an outcome is and using ends to justify means is always a slippery slope. The ultimate goal of war should be to produce a just, stable, and peaceful outcome, and certain means, like the use of nuclear weapons, are not conducive to such a result. Jus ad bellum poses requirements for constituting a just war, but as the reading points out, there are many flaws. The one that stood out to me was situations where a revolutionary group might have a just cause, but not “proper authority” or “reasonable chance of success.” This presents a flaw in Jus Ad Bellum since there is no provision for a group of people under severe oppression and even physical danger. This leads them to rely on an outside force to fight a war for them, similar to what happened when the U.S. intervened in Afghanistan (whether the war was just or not). Years ago, it was a common principle in western philosophy that a government is indebted to its people and should be required to protect their rights or else face rebellion. In modern warfare, it is difficult to imagine, especially in more developed countries, that an armed militia would do anything but be steamrolled by the national military. This also calls into question whether a revolutionary group could be justified given popular support within their nation. Both routes are flawed in this case since one is too rigid to allow progress in an authoritarian government and the other allows for mass movements to create new ones.
If nations wage war for unjust reasons, the citizens of a free country have a responsibility to dissent. Under threat of violence or loss of personal rights, it is justifiable to go along with war efforts as a civilian. Often it is only the most privileged ones who have a real option in these cases. Going to war under any circumstance is not cowardice since it involves great personal risk and sacrifice regardless of opinion. A nation that is severely divided internally is weak even if its military spending or technical capacity is high, so it is very difficult if each citizen acts on their own accord. It is definitely easy if each citizen in the world acts on the unified principles of jus ad bellum, but that is impossible. There is a lot of gray area in determining things like just cause, especially when it comes to anticipating attack and intervening in foreign wars. Defining a foreign government’s intentions and whether they are “oppressive” or not depends heavily on local biases. During the Cold War, any population that sought economic relief through communism was seen as a threat and enemy of the United States. The governments they established were all deemed oppressive, so the United States often installed other governments or practiced economically imperialist policies without regard for popular support or internal consequences. Soviet forces acted in a similar manner on the other side. Generally, average citizens can’t be held responsible for defining these difficult questions of whether their country’s war is justified or not. When soldiers are drafted, they are even less responsible for the justification of the entire war.
McMahan’s claim has meaning even though it is flawed. “Permissible” is a very strong word to use since it suggests a sort of responsibility or even punishment for fighting an unjust war. Jus in bello is far more important to hold people accountable for since even though soldiers aren’t making the decisions all the time, they are the agents (like the Milgram experiment). Applying Jus Ad Bellum to combatants is problematic since it requires them to discern gray areas and overcome the propaganda of their own government. While these people do have a civil responsibility to stand against leaders who partake in unjust wars, once the leader is in place and has made the decision they can’t be punished for these wars. This is not to say, however, that there is no individual responsibility for participating in atrocities in a “just manner” and voluntarily joining these wars.
