DOCSLIB.ORG

Terrorism and Just War Tradition: Issues of Compatibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terrorism and Just War Tradition: Issues of Compatibility TERRORISM AND JUST WAR TRADITION: ISSUES OF COMPATIBILITY Jason R. Gatliff A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2006 Committee: Donald Scherer, Advisor James H. Forse Graduate Faculty Representative Raymond Frey David Sobel © 2006 Jason Gatliff All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT In simplest terms, I intend to argue in this dissertation that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework. There are two forms that this argument can take. There is the weak form that concludes that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework but leaves open the question of the justifiability of any formulation of Just War Theory. There is also the strong form of the argument that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework and that the Just War Tradition is the correct moral theory to govern martial actions, and therefore concludes that at least some types of terrorism are permissible. In my dissertation, I am arguing for the weaker claim and leaving open the question of the correctness of any formulation of Just War Theory. If Just War Tradition is correct and I am successful in demonstrating that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework, then I will have shown that at least some types of terrorism are permissible. As I have said, though, my project is not to argue to defend any version of Just War Theory that Just War Tradition is correct but rather to merely to demonstrate that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework. When evaluating any use of force within the scope of a Just War framework, two questions need to be addressed: (1) was it appropriate to engage in the use of force (jus ad bellum considerations), and (2) was the force used appropriately (jus in bello considerations). It is within the scope of these two questions that most of the objections to terrorism arise. In my dissertation, I argue that a terrorist campaign or action can meet key standards of jus ad bellum and jus in bello implicit in Just War Theory. I show how these standards can be met in response to two central objections to terrorism, that terrorists lack the authority to make war, and that the random targeting of civilians renders terrorism unjustifiable. iv I approach the question whether it is appropriate for terrorists to engage in the use of violent force from the perspective of a Lockean theory of individual sovereignty. I show that the authority to engage in martial activities rests with governments because that authority has been granted them by those individuals who have come together to form the community over which the government has been given authority. Individuals who have delegated authority to the government, however, have not alienated their right to engage in martial activities. Instead, they have suspended exercising their right to engage in martial activities contingent upon the governments’ using that authority appropriately. When governments fail to use their delegated authority appropriately, then individuals can once again exercise their rights. This includes coming together to form new communities—non-governmental organizations—through which to exercise their power, including their right of self-defense. I deal with the second question, the appropriateness of terrorist tactics, e.g. intentionally targeting members of civilian populations, by arguing that many more members of the civilian population are combatants than most people realize. I argue that anyone who is dangerous in the martial sense, where the martial sense of dangerousness is understood as having one’s behavior purposely directed in support or military or other martial activities makes one a combatant. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1 1.1-Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2-Tradition, Theory and the Law of Armed Conflict ...................................................... 8 1.2.1-A Brief History of the Just War Tradition................................................... 11 1.2.2- The Law of Armed Conflict ....................................................................... 16 1.2.3-Summary...................................................................................................... 23 1.3-Plan for the Dissertation ............................................................................................. 26 CHAPTER TWO. JUST WAR THEORY: AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH .......................... 31 2.1-Introduction ................................................................................................................ 31 2.2-The Scope of Just War Tradition................................................................................ 32 2.3-Jus ad Bellum.............................................................................................................. 36 2.3.1-Right Authority............................................................................................ 36 2.3.2-Just Cause .................................................................................................... 37 2.3.3-Right Intention............................................................................................. 38 2.3.4-The Right Goal (Aim).................................................................................. 41 2.3.5- Proportionality ad Bellum........................................................................... 41 2.3.6-Last Resort................................................................................................... 42 2.3.7-Other Possible Jus ad Bellum Criteria......................................................... 43 2.3.7.1-Reasonable Chance of Success..................................................... 43 2.3.7.2-Formal Declaration....................................................................... 44 2.3.7.3-Comparative Justice...................................................................... 45 2.3.8-Summary...................................................................................................... 46 vi 2.4-Jus in Bello ................................................................................................................. 46 2.4.1-The Scope of Jus in Bello............................................................................ 49 2.4.2-Discrimination between Combatants and Noncombatants.......................... 50 2.4.3- Proportionality in Bello .............................................................................. 53 2.4.4-Conflicting Jus in Bello Criteria.................................................................. 54 2.5-Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 56 CHAPTER THREE. NON-GOVERNMENTAL POLITICAL TERRORISM ........................... 57 3.1-Introduction ................................................................................................................ 57 3.2-A Descriptive Definition of Non-Governmental Political Terrorism......................... 64 3.2.1-The Use or the Threat of the Use of Force/Violence................................... 65 3.2.2-Intention to Instill Fear in Ultimate Target.................................................. 67 3.2.3-The Violence as Politically Motivated ........................................................ 67 3.2.4-The Violence as Random............................................................................. 68 3.2.5-The Use of Violence as Unlawful or Illegitimate........................................ 69 3.2.6-The Immediate Target as Innocent Civilians............................................... 71 3.2.7-A Definition of Non-Governmental Political Terrorism ............................. 72 3.3-Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 72 CHAPTER FOUR. ON JUS AD BELLUM CONSIDERATIONS WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO SOVEREIGNTY AND RIGHT AUTHORITY ................................. 74 4.1-Introduction ................................................................................................................ 74 4.2-Right Authority........................................................................................................... 76 4.2.1 Locke’s Theory of Individual Sovereignty.................................................. 78 4.2.2-Individual Exercise of Political Power ........................................................ 83 4.2.3-Individual Rights and the Dissolution of the State...................................... 84 vii 4.3-Just Cause ................................................................................................................... 88 4.4-Right Intention............................................................................................................ 92 4.5-The Right Goal (Aim)................................................................................................. 94 4.6- Proportionality ad Bellum.......................................................................................... 95 4.6.1-Making the Decision to Go to War—to engage in martial activities .......... 95 4.6.2-Making the
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Attaining Post-Conflict Peace Using the Jus Post Bellum Concept
    religions Article Attaining Post-Conflict Peace Using the jus post bellum Concept Albert W. Klein 1,2,3 1 Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45208, USA; [email protected] 2 Fellow, The Center for Cyber Strategy and Policy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA 3 Faculty Fellow, Ohio Cyber Range Institute, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45208, USA Received: 27 January 2020; Accepted: 1 April 2020; Published: 8 April 2020 Abstract: To attain peace after state-on-state war, there must be a belligerent occupation to establish control and security of a defeated state—but that is not enough. There is the concept of jus post bellum concerning the vanquished, which is critically necessary in practice, yet insufficiently developed and understood. Providing the history and tentatively trying to determine the elements that are contained in this concept are the present article’s purpose. Tracing the concept from the earliest Christian writers to the more secular present-day authors will aid in the prospective application of jus post bellum. Scholars, military officers, statesmen, religious leaders, and humanitarians need to understand and accept the basic elements of the concept. A clear understanding of the largely religious history behind these elements should assist in their acceptance and future practical application, once these are agreed upon. Keywords: Just war; jus post bellum; Laws of War; Laws of Peace; Just War Theory 1. Introduction In my view, attaining a just peace after state-on-state wars requires a belligerent occupation and the application of the concept of jus post bellum.
    [Show full text]
  • Waging War: Filling the Gap in Just War Theory
    Waging War: Filling the Gap in Just War Theory by James M. Dubik Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Retired A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Baltimore, Maryland June 18, 2014 © 2014 James M. Dubik All Rights Reserved Abstract 1. Statement of the Problem. Just war theory’s account of jus in bello is deficient. Michael Walzer, the prime representative of the prevailing view in the United States, restricts jus in bello to combat, war-fighting, then constructs a theory of responsibility and presents a set of principles that guide action when fighting: the principles of combatant/noncombatant distinction, proportionality, double effect and double intent, as well as the principle of due care/due risk—all of which arise amid the tension between winning and fighting well. 2. Procedures and methods. This study establishes and describes the gap in the prevailing view’s treatment of jus in bello, then investigates alternative ways to fill that gap. Throughout, the study combines elements of moral philosophy, political philosophy, and strategic studies with historical and contemporary case illustrations of war. 3. Results. This study finds that the prevailing view is necessary but insufficient; it omits jus in bello’s strategic, war-waging dimension which involves a tri-partite tension: (a) setting war aims and making strategy, policy, and campaign decisions that increase the probability of being right, or at least less wrong than those one is fighting; (b) translating those decisions into action to achieve war aims at the least cost, in lives and resources, and least risk to one’s political community and adapting aims, strategies, policies, and campaigns to the changing realities of war as they unfold; and (c) doing all of the foregoing while observing the war convention, sustaining the war’s legitimacy in the eyes of the political community, and maintaining proper subordination of the military to civilian ii leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 24 no. 1 © The Author, 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of EJIL Ltd. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War Larry May* Downloaded from Abstract http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/ This article begins by briefly discussing the general idea of jus post bellum norms before turning to discuss some of Michael Walzer’s ideas about jus post bellum, particularly what he says, or could be construed to infer, about post-war proportionality. It also re-examines Walzer’s discussion of the problems of post-war retribution and reconciliation. The article seeks to formulate and defend a post-war principle of proportionality, discussing how it relates to other proportionality principles, as well as to other jus post bellum principles. This leads to an examination of the fog of war, especially concerning Robert McNamara’s at New York University School of Law on April 30, 2013 calculations about the application of the principle of proportionality to the firebombing of Tokyo. I outline a general account of contingent pacifism that seems to me to follow from careful consideration of the jus post bellum principle of proportionality. The article closes by initiating a discussion of the prospects for the end of war in light of considerations about the justice of how particular wars should end. For the last 2,000 years, a philosophical and theological tradition has dominated dis- cussions about war, the Just War tradition. Augustine of Hippo is often credited with starting that tradition as he argued against the early Church Fathers who were largely pacifists.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm
    Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm by William James Jordan A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2021 © William James Jordan 2021 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. Thedeci­ sion of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner: Col. David Barnes Professor, Department of English and Philosophy United States Military Academy Supervisor: W. Mathieu Doucet Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal Member: Brian D. Orend Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal Member: Patricia A. Marino Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal­External Member: Veronica M. Kitchen Associate Professor, Department of Political Science University of Waterloo ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my ex­ aminers. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the pub­ lic. iii Abstract Cyberwarfare, military activities in cyberspace conducted by a state against another state and intended to disrupt or destroy computing or communica­ tion systems or data, is a recent addition to the warfaring arsenal. The in­ ternational laws of armed conflict set out an obligation for states at warto protect civilians from the effects of the conflict. As societies continue toex­ pand their activities in the cyber realm, the risk of cyberwarfare negatively affecting the civilian population increases.
    [Show full text]