DOCSLIB.ORG

Just War Theory and Non-State Actors by Eric Edwin Smith a Dissertation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Just War Theory and Non-State Actors by Eric Edwin Smith a Dissertation Just War Theory and Non-State Actors by Eric Edwin Smith A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn University May 16, 2015 Approved by Linda F. Dennard, Chair, Department of Political Science and Public Administration Howard M. Hensel, Department of Political Science and Public Administration Murray Jardine, Department of Political Science and Public Administration James Nathan, Department of Political Science and Public Administration Shawn E. Schooley, Department of Political Science and Public Administration Abstract In the modern era mankind faces challenges that include: globalization, regional and international institutions assuming sovereign authority over states, devastating acts of terrorism, 24-hour international news coverage, super power collapse, weapons of mass destruction, and failed states, and cause one to question if an ancient body of knowledge called Just War Theory can continue to serve as a moral guideline in circumstances where regimes desire using military force to resolve conflicts with other states or groups within states. Tracing the evolution of Just War Theory, the study analyzes circumstances involving Armed Non-State Actor (ANSA) groups possessing powerful and destructive capabilities and a desire to use these against other groups and states, and pursues answers to the central research question: how does Just War Theory apply in modern scenarios involving ANSA groups who challenge the state and international institution’s monopoly on use of force? The study found that Just War Theory has capacity to accommodate modern day statecraft and application in scenarios involving Armed Non-State Actors operating among the international community. ii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ ii Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 20 Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................................... 166 Chapter 4: Case Studies .................................................................................................................... 210 Chapter 5: Analyses .......................................................................................................................... 292 Chapter 6: Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 341 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 346 iii Chapter 1: Introduction Saint Thomas Aquinas quoting Augustine (Epistle ad Boniface, 189) “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.”1 This is a study about Just War Theory, and its application in modern circumstances. The lineage of Just War Theory dates several thousand years, with the most recent millennium seeing the body of knowledge mature into its current version. Just War Theory serves decision makers, scholars, and analysts by seeking a balance between the immorality of using violence and the necessity of defending one’s self, property or state. Paul Cornish describes Just War Theory as a combination of means and ends, a dualism in which Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello are logically independent. War must be initiated for morally correct reasons, yet fought on the battlefield for a differing set of morally correct reasons. The two elements are never to be combined as an unjust war may be fought justly, and similarly a just war may be initiated and then fought unjustly.2 Seeking limits on aggression and protection of innocents, a just war adheres to two generalities. First, using force requires satisfying at least some, and preferably all Jus ad Bellum elements before the physical conflict begins. Serving as a pre-conflict framework, Jus ad Bellum connects the regime’s desire to employ violence with the need to achieve peace and maintain security. Jus Ad Bellum separates frivolous disagreements and grievances occurring from 1 Christopher, P. (2004). The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction to Legal and Moral Issues. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 52. 2 Cornish, P. (2007). “The ethics of ‘effects-based’ warfare: the crowding out of Jus in Bello.” In Reed, C. & Ryall, D. (2007). The Price of Peace: Just War in the Twenty-First Century. (pp. 179-200). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 190. 1 differences of opinion or egotistical brashness from issues that are serious in nature and may require use of force to resolve. Second, once in conflict, rules govern military conduct and actions in combat. Jus in Bello serves as compliment to Jus ad Bellum, and both work to achieve a peaceful endstate through avoiding unnecessary conflict, minimization of violence, and acting appropriately during war. Jus ad Bellum contains six elements: • Just Cause • Right Intent • Proper Authority • Proportionality (Political) • Chance of Success • Last Resort Jus in Bello contains two elements: • Proportionality (Military) • Discrimination The Treaty of Westphalia began a system for organizing and empowering state leaders that exists in the present day. The Treaty gave each state’s governing apparatus sovereign jurisdiction and control over all territories and populations within, and warned undesired outsiders to avoid crossing state boundaries. When the occasional dispute among two or more states occurs, the elements of Just War Theory serve as the generally accepted moral framework for determining when a state was justified in acting against another state, and what actions 2 against another state are appropriate. As World War II concluded, the world leaders saw a need for an internationally recognized institution to oversee and moderate states interacting with each other, and the result was the United Nations (U.N.). Over time, nearly every state has accepted the U.N. as a governance body that helps to resolve disputes among states, thus serving as an arbitrator for limiting or avoiding conflict, and ultimately war. In its capacity as arbitrator, the U.N. has assumed an influencing role in state’s use of force against other states. Thus Just War Theory applies to actions and decisions made by the U.N. Terrorism, Rogue and Weak States, and Armed Non-State Actors Many definitions of terrorism and those who perform acts intended to terrorize others exist, but in general terrorists prefer random and public acts of violence against populations or groups within a population to promote compliance, fear and uncertainty. Often the terrorist will target a group to motivate them to demand a change in behavior of a governing regime. Jeffrey Whitman describes modern terrorist groups often possessing little political or military power, yet desiring political reform. He sees some terrorist groups as a unique because of their prioritizing eschatological goals of societal conversion over the traditional goal of political reform, with some possessing a martyristic desire to fight to the death with no possible compromise.3 While history documents countless examples of groups opposing organized government, in the last three decades the world has seen a small number of very aggressive groups emerge on the international stage who possess military weapons and tactics. This new strain of violent groups poses a threat to the current balance of U.N. influence and state governance. Ulrich 3 Whitman, J. (Winter 2006-2007). “Just War Theory and the war on Terrorism: A Utilitarian Perspective.” Public Integrity, 9(1), (pp. 23-43), 25. 3 Schneckener refers to groups who challenge the international institutions and states monopoly on use of force as Armed Non-State Actors (ANSA). He includes pirates, mercenaries, warlords, bandits, tribal chiefs, and criminal gangs, and others who operate beyond the state’s control in his ANSA definition. The most important characteristic found among these ANSAs is their lack of integration into formal state institutions such as regular armies, presidential guards, or police forces.4 Within Schneckener’s ANSA category are a small number of ambitious organizations that employ violence against other militaries inside and beyond the sanctuary state borders. Possessing a combination of resources and talents that include leadership, experience, and expertise, the groups have demonstrated an ability to effectively synchronize collective military actions against formidable opponents. To survive, the ANSA requires sanctuary and support from a sponsor state. Daniel Byman, Middle East policy expert for the Brookings Institute, describes sponsorship or sanctuary as a safe haven for the ANSA allowing the group to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, and operate in relative security. Often the harboring state allows these groups to operate because of inadequate governing capacity, political will, or both. The sanctuary state’s governing apparatus may appear in many forms, including a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Examination of the Correlation Between the Justification and Glorification of War in Charles Mee's Iphigenia
    An Examination of the Correlation Between the Justification and Glorification of War in Charles Mee’s Iphigenia 2.0: A Director’s Approach Caroline Donica Table of Contents Chapter One: Charles Mee and the History Behind Iphigenia 2.0 4 Introduction 4 The Life and Works of Charles Mee 4 Just War 8 Production History and Reception 11 Survey of Literature 13 Conclusion 15 Chapter Two: Play Analysis 16 Introduction 16 Synopsis 16 Given Circumstances 24 Previous Action 26 Dialogue and Imagery 27 Character Analysis 29 Idea and Theme 34 Conclusion 36 Chapter Three: The Design Process 37 Introduction 37 Production Style 37 Director’s Approach 38 Choice of Stage 38 Collaboration with Designers 40 Set Design 44 Costumes 46 Makeup and Hair 50 Properties 52 Lighting 53 Sound 55 Conclusion 56 Chapter Four: The Rehearsal Process 57 Introduction 57 Auditions and Casting 57 Rehearsals and Acting Strategies 60 Technical and Dress Rehearsals 64 Performances 65 Conclusion 67 Chapter Five: Reflection 68 Introduction 68 Design 68 Staging and Timing 72 Acting 73 Self-Analysis 77 Conclusion 80 Appendices 82 A – Photos Featuring the Set Design 83 B – Photos Featuring the Costume Design 86 C – Photos Featuring the Lighting Design 92 D – Photos Featuring the Concept Images 98 Works Consulted 102 Donica 4 Chapter One Charles Mee and the History Behind Iphigenia 2.0 Introduction Charles Mee’s Iphigenia 2.0 is a significant work in recent theatre history. The play was widely recognized and repeatedly produced for its unique take on contemporary issues, popular culture, and current events set within a framework of ancient myths and historical literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Post Bellum
    The Unjustness of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum by Dan G. Cox us post bellum was originally conceived as an extension of modern just war theory. Specifically, it was aimed at examining the justness and morality of actions during war, jus in bello, in relationship to negotiations for peace in the post-war setting. Under the initial conception of Jjus post bellum, considerations of distinction of enemies from civilians, for example, takes on a more pointed meaning, as one has to calculate how much collateral damage is appropriate given the longer-term end-goal of successful and beneficial peace negotiations. Unfortunately, jus post bellum has recently been expanded to mean that the victor in the war is now responsible for the long-term well-being of the people it has defeated. This has led to a concerted outcry for post-war nation-building, which neither leads necessarily to successful negotiations, nor ensures a better or lasting peace. In fact, current conceptions of jus post bellum remove national interest from the equation altogether, replacing all military endeavors with one monolithic national interest—liberal imperialism.1 Further, current incantations of jus post bellum obviate the possibility of a punitive strike or punitive expedition, even though this might be exactly what is needed in certain cases to create a better peace than existed prior to conflict. This article is an exploration of the current incantation of jus post bellum. The concept of an incantation was chosen purposively, as proponents of jus post bellum are engaging in a dogmatic approach to war termination oblivious to the complexities and realities of conflict and, in fact, in violation of just war theory itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Cox, Abstract, the Injustice of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum
    The Injustice of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum Dan G. Cox, Ph. D., School of Advanced Military Studies, US Army, [email protected] 9137583319 Abstract: Jus post bellum was originally conceived as an extension of modern just war theory. Specifically, it was aimed at examining the justness and morality of actions during war, jus in bello, in relationship to negotiations for peace in the post-war setting. Under the initial conception of jus post bellum, considerations of distinction of enemies from civilians, for example, takes on a more pointed meaning as one has to calculate how much collateral damage, even if allowed for in just in bello, is appropriate given the longer-term end-goal of successful and beneficial peace negotiations. Unfortunately, jus post bellum has been expanded to mean that the victor in the war is now responsible for the well-being of the people and/or nation it has defeated. This has led to a concerted cry for post-war nation-building which neither leads necessarily to successful negotiations nor ensures a better or lasting peace. In fact, current conceptions of jus post bellum remove national interest from the equation altogether replacing all military endeavors with one monolithic national interest; liberal imperialism1. Further, current incantations of jus post bellum obviate the possibility of a punitive strike or punitive expedition even though this might be exactly what is needed in certain cases to create a better peace than existed prior to conflict. This paper will explore the genesis and evolution of the jus post bellum concept.
    [Show full text]
  • The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism Author(S): Michael Walzer Reviewed Work(S): Source: Political Theory, Vol
    The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism Author(s): Michael Walzer Reviewed work(s): Source: Political Theory, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 6-23 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191477 . Accessed: 24/08/2012 12:14 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory. http://www.jstor.org THE COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM MICHAEL WALZER Institutefor A dvanced Study 1. Intellectualfashions are notoriously short-lived, very much like fashions in popularmusic, art, or dress.But thereare certainfashions that seem regularlyto reappear. Like pleated trousers or short skirts, they are inconstant featuresof a largerand more steadily prevailing phenomenon - in this case, a certainway of dressing. They have brief but recurrent lives; we knowtheir transienceand excepttheir return. Needless to say,there is no afterlifein whichtrousers will be permanentlypleated or skirtsforever short. Recur- renceis all. Althoughit operatesat a muchhigher level (an infinitelyhigher level?) of culturalsignificance, the communitarian critique of liberalismis likethe pleatingof trousers:transient but certainto return.It is a consistently intermittentfeature of liberalpolitics and social organization.No liberal successwill make it permanently unattractive.
    [Show full text]
  • Peace and War
    Peace and War Christian Reflection A SERIES IN FAITH AND ETHICS BAYLOR UNIVERSITY GENERAL EDITOR Robert B. Kruschwitz ART EDITOR Heidi J. Hornik REVIEW EDITOR Norman Wirzba PRODUCTION ASSISTANT Julie Bolin DESIGNER Eric Yarbrough PUBLISHER The Center for Christian Ethics Baylor University One Bear Place #97361 Waco, TX 76798-7361 PHONE (254) 710-3774 TOLL-FREE (USA) (866) 298-2325 W E B S I T E www.ChristianEthics.ws E-MAIL [email protected] All Scripture is used by permission, all rights reserved, and unless otherwise indicated is from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. ISSN 1535-8585 Christian Reflection is the ideal resource for discipleship training in the church. Multiple copies are obtainable for group study at $2.50 per copy. Worship aids and lesson materials that enrich personal or group study are available free on the website. Christian Reflection is published quarterly by The Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University. Contributors express their considered opinions in a responsible manner. The views expressed are not official views of The Center for Christian Ethics or of Baylor University. The Center expresses its thanks to individuals, churches, and organizations, including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, who provided financial support for this publication. © 2004 The Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University All rights reserved Contents Introduction 8 Robert B. Kruschwitz War in the Old Testament 11 John A. Wood The War of the Lamb 18 Harry O. Maier Terrorist Enemies and Just War 27 William T.
    [Show full text]
  • The Returning Warrior and the Limits of Just War Theory
    THE RETURNING WARRIOR AND THE LIMITS OF JUST WAR THEORY R.J. Delahunty Professor of Law University of St. Thomas School of Law* In this essay, I seek to explore a Christian tradition that is nei- ther the just war theory nor pacifism. Unlike pacifism, this tradi- tion teaches that war is a necessary and inescapable aspect of the human condition, and that Christians cannot escape from engaging in it. Unlike just war theory, this tradition holds that engaging in war is intrinsically sinful, however justifiable that activity may be considered to be in the light of human law, morality or reason. Mi- chael Walzer captured the essence of this way of thinking in a cele- brated essay on the problem of “dirty hands.”1 Although Walzer’s essay was chiefly about political rather than military action, he rightly observed that there was a strand in Christian reflection that saw killing, whether in a just or unjust war, as defiling or even sin- ful, even if it conformed to moral and legal standards. That tradi- tion, though subordinate, still survives in Christian, especially Lu- theran, thought. The Church’s thought about war and peace went through sever- al phases before finally settling on the just war theory. Throughout much of the Middle Ages, the Church’s approach to war was pri- marily pastoral and unsystematic. Although opinions varied widely depending on the circumstances, the early medieval Church was commonly skeptical of the permissibility of killing in warfare. Ra- ther, the Church at that time tended to the view that killing – even in a just war – was sinful and required penance.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Individualism/Communitarianism Debate: in Defense of Personism1 Nancy O. Myles
    Myles, N. O./ Legon Journal of the Humanities 29.2 (2018) DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ljh.v29i2.9 ‘The individual’ in the individualism/communitarianism debate: In defense of personism1 Nancy O. Myles Assistant Lecturer Department of Philosophy and Classics University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana PhD Candidate, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Submitted: April 16, 2018 / Accepted: October 20, 2018 / Published: December 3, 2018 Abstract Conceptually obfuscating the construct ‘the individual’ with the individuality of persons is the main underlying presupposition that generates the communitarianism/individualism debate and nourishes its tensions. Adopting chiefly an analytic approach, this paper brings some clarity to the substance of the debate focusing on Western ‘communitarian’ thought. It advocates making ‘the person’ the focus as ‘personism’ necessarily encompasses individuality and communality. Dispelling many quandaries of the debate, it is hoped, exposes to a greater degree, what should be one main, if not the main, concern of socio- political theory and practice. Keywords: ‘the individual’, individuality, community, communality, personism 1 The author wishes to acknowledge that substantive portions of this article appear in some form in her PhD dissertation. Legon Journal of the Humanities 29.2 (2018) Page | 241 Myles, N. O./ ‘The individual’ in the individualism/communitarianism debate Introduction The disagreement in the communitarianism/individualism debate: A recap A bone of contention between individualist and communitarian thought, regardless of the particular differentiation per author, is the idea of ‘the individual’. The question or concern that engaged the neo-Kantianism of Rawls’ A theory of justice (1971) as well as other individualist thinkers such as Robert Nozick, David Gauthier, Ronald Dworkin, and to some extent Kymlicka is ‘the individual’.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Theories of Just War: Understanding Warfare As a Social Tool Through Comparative Analysis of Western, Chinese, and Islamic Classical Theories of War
    THREE THEORIES OF JUST WAR: UNDERSTANDING WARFARE AS A SOCIAL TOOL THROUGH COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WESTERN, CHINESE, AND ISLAMIC CLASSICAL THEORIES OF WAR A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY MAY 2012 By Faruk Rahmanović Thesis Committee: Tamara Albertini, Chairperson Roger T. Ames James D. Frankel Brien Hallett Keywords: War, Just War, Augustine, Sunzi, Sun Bin, Jihad, Qur’an DEDICATION To my parents, Ahmet and Nidžara Rahmanović. To my wife, Majda, who continues to put up with me. To Professor Keith W. Krasemann, for teaching me to ask the right questions. And to Professor Martin J. Tracey, for his tireless commitment to my success. 1 ABSTRACT The purpose of this analysis was to discover the extent to which dictates of war theory ideals can be considered universal, by comparing the Western (European), Classical Chinese, and Islamic models. It also examined the contextual elements that drove war theory development within each civilization, and the impact of such elements on the differences arising in war theory comparison. These theories were chosen for their differences in major contextual elements, in order to limit the impact of contextual similarities on the war theories. The results revealed a great degree of similarities in the conception of warfare as a social tool of the state, utilized as a sometimes necessary, albeit tragic, means of establishing peace justice and harmony. What differences did arise, were relatively minor, and came primarily from the differing conceptions of morality and justice within each civilization – thus indicating a great degree of universality to the conception of warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • COURSE OUTLINE PHI/POL-220 Philosophy of Politics Course
    COURSE OUTLINE PHI/POL-220 Philosophy of Politics Course Number: PHI 220 or POL 220 Course Title: Philosophy of Politics / Modern Political Theory Required Materials: Text: Classics of Modern Political Theory, ed. by Steven M. Cahn (NY: Oxford University Press, 1997) Catalog Description: An introduction to modern political theory starting with Machiavelli and concluding with Mill. Highlights include readings from Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, The Federalist Papers, Burke, Bentham, Hegel, and Marx and Engels. Critical analysis and selected issues in modern political theory are stressed. Students may opt to take this course either as a political science or philosophy elective. See course description number under each area. Course Coordinator: Saul Goldwasser I. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COURSE (ORIGINAL READINGS) (Weekly Class Schedule by Topic) INTRODUCTION - Lecture on Modern Political Theory: Criteria for Evaluation and Application to Modern Issues 1. Machiavelli 2. Thomas Hobbes 3. Baruch Spinoza 4. John Locke 5. Montesquieu 6. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 7. David Hume 5-8 Page Joint Researched Position Paper Due 8. Adam Smith 9. Immanuel Kant 10. The Declaration of Independence The Constitution of the US the Federalist Papers 11. Edmund Burke and Alexis De Tocqueville 12. Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel 13. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels 14. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill II. GENERAL OBJECTIVES A. Defining Political Theory (aka Political Philosophy and Political Thought) 1. History 2. Significance - The Proper Purposes of Government B. Introduce Criteria for Evaluation of Political Theories - Analysis and Assessment 1. Desirable Political Arrangements Involving Analysis of Moral Values 2. Possible Political Social Contractual Arrangements 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Editors' Interview with Michael Walzer
    [50] JOURNAL OF POLITICAL THOUGHT INTERVIEW [with Michael Walzer] Michael Walzer is a prominent American political theorist and public intel- lectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princ- eton, New Jersey, he is co-editor of Dissent, an intellectual magazine that he has been affiliated with since his years as an undergraduate at Brandeis University. He has written about a wide variety of topics in political theory and moral philosophy, including political obligation, just and unjust war, nationalism and ethnicity, economic justice, and the welfare state. He has played a critical role in the revival of a practical, issue-focused ethics and in the development of a pluralist approach to political and moral life. Wal- zer’s books include Just and Unjust Wars (1977), On Toleration (1997), and Spheres of Justice (1983). We sat down with him in May for a wide- ranging conversation on the interplay between personal identity and po- litical thought, the state of political theory today, and the overlapping chal- lenges posed by religion and ethnicity for the contemporary nation-state. I. Identity and the Political interested in left-issue politics. Theory License My teachers at Brandeis told me I should apply to graduate school JPT: What first drew you to the in political science, because it field of political theory? wasn’t really a field and you could do whatever you wanted. Whereas MW: When I was a history major in history you would be commit- at Brandeis, I was first interested ted to archival research, in politi- in studying the history of ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • State Sovereignty Discourse and the Just War Tradition: Assessing Colombia’S 2008 Cross-Border Raid Into Ecuador and Its Foreign Policy Implications
    i State sovereignty discourse and the Just War Tradition: Assessing Colombia’s 2008 cross-border raid into Ecuador and its foreign policy implications Kim Refshauge Master of Arts (Research) in International Studies, School of International Studies, University of Technology Sydney 2017 ii CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP This thesis is the result of a research candidature at the University of Technology, Sydney as in fulfilment of the requirements for a Master’s degree. I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a different degree. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Signature of Student: Date: 27-July-2017 iii iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am grateful to my supervisor, Associate Professor Jeff Browitt, for his unwavering support and dedicated supervision over the last two years. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my parents for their encouragement. This thesis would not have been possible without them. v vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION: ............................................................................... 1 Military interventions similar to Operation Phoenix: ........................... 2 Typology of justifications for military interventions .........................
    [Show full text]
  • “Against Such Hellish Mischief Fit to Oppose”: a Grotian Reading of Milton’S War in Heaven
    Elizabeth Oldman “Against such hellish mischief fit to oppose”: A Grotian Reading of Milton’s War in Heaven y the time the latter parts of Paradise Lost came to be written,” remarks Stevie Davies, “the revolution had failed and the new tyrant, Charles II, had been restored” (45). In Paradise Lost, this essay proposes, Milton “Bcalls upon Hugo Grotius’s version of natural law to distinguish evil from good at a time when evil seemed to prevail. He attempts to make natural law perform beyond the restoration of monarchy, to ultimately prove God’s just intention in allowing the unfortunate outcome of the English Civil War to take place. Demonstrating the poet’s Grotian belief that the parameters for legitimate military action must be circumscribed in accordance with the laws of nature, two models of warfare—criminal battle originated by Satan, and God’s justifiable defensive response—take place in the War in Heaven in Book 6 of the epic. This three-day conflict fought between God’s troops and Satan’s enables Milton to investigate “what kind of rebellion was justified and what not” (Hill 366). As explanation for why the angels agree to battle, I consider how the War in Heaven ensues in a Grotian manner as a necessary instrument, for there is no other way of obliging errant nations which are uncivil to conform to reason. In response to unjust war, that is, one must wage just war. In contrast to Satan, who reveals himself as a usurper who initiates his ‘‘foreign” or international campaign for conquest and plunder of land, commendable rulership is embodied in juxtaposition with the author’s depiction of God.
    [Show full text]