Justifications for Violent Conflict

Just War Theory

Central to this discussion is just war theory, which proposes criteria to morally justify warfare and ensure ethical conduct during war. The theory has roots in ancient thought, including Roman writers such as Cicero, and was significantly shaped by Christian theology, first by St. Augustine and later by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. It distinguishes between the moral basis for going to war (jus ad bellum) and ethical conduct within war (jus in bello). Augustine and Aquinas were concerned mainly with when war could be justified, and ideas about how it should be fought were developed more fully by later thinkers. The Latin labels themselves are modern and only became standard in the twentieth century.

Jus ad bellum evaluates the morality behind the decision to initiate war, focusing on several key criteria:

• Just Cause: Engaging in war requires a just cause or reason to engage in war. Self-defence is typically the most accepted justification. International law, under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibits states from using force against other states. However, the Charter allows two main exceptions. The first is Security Council authorization under Chapter VII (see Legitimate Authority below). The second is self-defence. Article 51 preserves "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs." Collective self-defence means other states can come to the aid of a state that has been attacked, just as NATO members did when they invoked Article 5 of their treaty after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
• Customary international law includes two conditions related to just cause two conditions:
  • Force used in self-defence must be necessary; there is no reasonable alternative
  • Force must be proportionate. Any force that is used must not go beyond what is needed to stop or repel the attack.
• Legitimate Authority: War should be initiated only by a legitimate authority. An internationally acknowledged head of state usually qualifies as such an authority, but this notion is debated. What if the head of state is unstable, not democratically elected, or simply breaking international law? Moreover, the UN Security Council is vested with the power to identify and address threats to global peace, authorizing the use of force through resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
• Just Intentions: States engaging in conflict must do so to uphold justice rather than advance their own or national interests. Assessing the motives behind war efforts poses a significant challenge, as does defining the pursuit of justice itself. Humanitarian interventions aimed at halting severe human rights abuses, like genocide, are often viewed as aligning with noble intentions. Nevertheless, the justification for intervening in other humanitarian situations remains contentious - is the intervention really being undertaken for humanitarian purposes, or are there neocolonial motives?

Later thinkers, including Vitoria, Suárez and Grotius, expanded the tradition with further criteria. 

• Probability of Success: There needs to be a legitimate expectation of success in meeting the conflict's objectives. Given the intricate nature of warfare, accurately assessing the likelihood of success can be challenging.
• Last Resort: Engaging in war should be considered only once all non-violent means have been thoroughly explored and deemed not viable. This raises the complex issue of defining what constitutes a "viable, peaceful alternative." Could warfare never be justified if another non-violent solution always exists? Would this be unreasonable?
• Proportionality: The conflict's detrimental effects must not outweigh the anticipated benefits. Predicting the exact outcome in terms of harm versus benefit is often difficult, if not outright impossible, before the start of hostilities.

In the twentieth century, the tradition was revived in secular form by Michael Walzer, whose Just and Unjust Wars (1977), written partly in response to the Vietnam War, remains the most influential modern account of just war theory.

Jus in bello, or justice in war, focuses on ethical conduct during warfare. It emphasizes principles like distinction, where only combatants should be targeted, and proportionality, to avoid excessive force. These principles form the foundation of international humanitarian law, aiming to minimize war's impact on civilians and non-combatants.

These are the key elements of jus in bello:

• The principle of distinction prohibits the targeting of civilians during war.
• The principle of proportionality prohibits the use of excessive force in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
• The principle of precaution requires combatants to take all possible precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and non-combatants.
• The protection of prisoners of war: prisoners of war must be treated humanely and not be subjected to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.
• Protection of medical personnel and facilities: Medical personnel and facilities must be protected and not targeted during the war.

The Basics of the Law of War 

• The rules of war, or international humanitarian law (as it is known formally), are a set of international rules that outline what can and cannot be done during an armed conflict.
• The main purpose of international humanitarian law (IHL) is to maintain some humanity in armed conflicts, save lives, and reduce suffering.
• To do that, IHL regulates how wars are fought, balancing two aspects: weakening the enemy and limiting suffering.
• The rules of war are universal. The Geneva Conventions (which are the core element of IHL) have been ratified by all 196 states. Very few international treaties have this level of support.
• Everyone fighting a war needs to respect IHL, both governmental forces and non-state armed groups.
• If the rules of war are broken, there are consequences. War crimes are documented and investigated by States and international courts. Individuals can be prosecuted for war crimes.

-  From the International Committee of the Red Cross

Watch the following video from the International Committee of the Red Cross on the laws of war and answer the prompt below.

Criticisms of Just War Theory

Although the 'just war' theory has significantly contributed to the field of peace and conflict studies, it faces several critiques. Initially, as mentioned in our analysis of jus ad bellum, the theory employs terms that are often ambiguous or poorly defined. Questions arise, such as whether the threat of an imminent attack justifies war, especially when the definition of 'imminent' varies widely.

Beyond these issues, scholars of realist international relations critique the theory for its idealistic view of global politics, which they argue is actually governed by power dynamics and the pursuit of national interests rather than ethical considerations of justice and fairness. This perspective suggests that just war theory does not accurately mirror the real-world decision-making process regarding war and peace.

Pacifists also challenge the theory, arguing that it can be misused to legitimize violence under so-called moral justifications (more on pacifism during our nonviolent conflict topic). Additionally, feminist and intersectional scholars point out that just war theory often fails to account for the specific impacts of war on women, children, and other marginalized groups. They advocate for a deeper examination of war's diverse effects on different communities before determining what constitutes a just cause or proper conduct in warfare.

Practically speaking, just war theory faces criticism for its state-centric focus at a time when non-state actors, civil conflicts, and guerrilla warfare are prevalent. The advent of unconventional warfare methods has created a lack of clarity in the distinctions between combatants and non-combatants that just war theory relies upon. This raises questions about its applicability in current contexts. For example, whether a cyberattack that disrupts infrastructure without causing direct fatalities qualifies as a 'just cause' remains debatable.

Finally, there is growing interest in the concept of jus post bellum, or justice after war, which includes considerations such as war crime tribunals, reconstruction efforts, and reconciliation processes. This shift suggests the need for a broader understanding of justice that extends beyond the traditional confines of just war theory to include the aftermath of conflict.

Justifications Rooted in Religion

Though 'just war' theory has origins in theological thought, it isn't primarily framed around religious beliefs. Nonetheless, religious reasons, often entwined with political, economic, or territorial motivations, have provided grounds for conflict.

Certain faiths believe that divine or spiritual mandates compel them to engage in warfare, either to combat enemies or to protect religious adherents from persecution or threats because of their religious practices. Such beliefs have underpinned conflicts aimed at religious minorities or individuals seen as adversaries to particular faiths.

Additionally, conflicts have been initiated to preserve a community's religious sanctity or to counter doctrines at odds with those of religious leaders. Disputes over land, structures, or relics deemed holy or essential to a religious tradition have also sparked wars fought to safeguard or retrieve these revered sites.

It is important to acknowledge that these religious justifications, while present, typically do not reflect the predominant sentiments within any given religious community. Most religious traditions advocate for peace and reconciliation. It is often the case that the use of war to further religious ends is more often influenced by political ambitions than by religion alone.

Cultural Justifications

The foundations for war often stem from deep-seated cultural reasons that may intersect with religious motives. Like religious justifications, it is important to recognize that although cultural rationales emerge from specific cultural contexts, they shouldn't be understood as the views of any single culture as a whole.

Historical grievances, such as previous injustices, invasions, or colonialism, are common cultural grounds for conflict. Leaders can leverage such events to rally support for military endeavours. They frame them as necessary for vengeance or reclaiming lost territories. Cultural stories also play a significant role in escalating disputes over territories, especially when these areas hold cultural, historical, or religious importance.

Similar to religious motivations, a culture under the impression that its identity or core values are under threat might embrace warfare as a protective measure. Alternatively, efforts to disseminate cultural norms and values outside a state's borders can justify military interventions to propagate these cultural beliefs to other societies.