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