Are there ‘just wars’?

Résumé du document

The notion of 'just war' can be considered as a moral philosophy of the War debating the legitimacy of wars and the way wars are made. The existence of just wars thus supposes that violence can be ethical. However, it has to be underlined that even for the just wars theoreticians, war is never good per se, it remains something bad, with painful consequences, and it can only be justified as a means to remedy another bad situation. Questioning the existence of just wars is particularly relevant today insofar as this theory has become "fashionable", especially since the attacks of 9-11. The whole war on terrorism that has followed these attacks is indeed always defined as a just war. That will have to be discussed. To analyze this theory, it is first essential to understand precisely its classical and historical definition and then, to take a look at the recent evolutions of the doctrine and to wonder in what sense it can correspond to recent wars.

Extraits

[...] As a doctrine constantly evolving, we now may wonder what the future of the just war can be. According to Monique Canto Sperber, in her book Le Bien, la Guerre et la Terreur: pour une Morale internationale, terrorism may be fatal to the doctrine as more and more, wars are going to be waged as preventive wars, in the name of morality. But she argues that the notion of preventive war is contrary to the notion of just cause, maybe because the idea of just cause is being put in jeopardy. [...]

[...] That is the case of the 1st Gulf War and the War in Kosovo. Indeed, almost no one today would say that the 1st Gulf war was unjust. The cause of the war (to defend the sovereign and yet attacked state of Kuwait), the backing of the almost entire international community, the limited civilian losses and the final result which was conform to the objectives indeed make it a just war. The case of Kosovo is different: there was no mandate given by the United Nations and the final result, the removal of the Milosevic Regime, was not a goal of the war. [...]

[...] According to Grotius, a war is just if three basic criteria are met: first, the danger faced by the nation must be immediate; second, the force used must be necessary to defend the nation's interests; third, the use of force has to be proportionate to the threatened danger. Throughout History, the idea that waging a war can be just inasmuch as it can be a means to improve a given situation has been developed. Nevertheless, it appears that from Saint Augustin to Grotius, the just war theory has remained quite the same in its core definition as to how and when wars can be justified. [...]

[...] It is also limited by its authority as he believes that power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority” and by its conduct as a war should never be waged in order to dominate, but only for the good of the entire community and to punish those who broke the social order. During the Middle Ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas emphasized St. Augustin's statements, breaking up his argument into three necessary conditions for a just war: authorized authority, just cause and rightful intention. [...]

[...] Walzer still considers the importance of jus ad bellum and jus in bello but adds jus post bellum in the definition of a just war. As the name says it, jus post bellum means what comes after the war and Walzer talks about moral responsibilities of victors in a war”. For Walzer, the way victors behave themselves after a war is as important as the way they acted before and during the war Were they “Just Wars” 4. The First Gulf War and the Kosovo War: different approaches, yet same appreciation On the one hand, recent history shows that different wars can be waged completely differently and yet be equally considered as just. [...]