After reading the
article “Violence and Justice” by Coady, I question the justice of war. The two
terms “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello” are the “laws of war”, standard
validations used to declare war. Has the United States used these guidelines
before declaring war on another state? Under Coady’s Principles of Just War
Theory, I believe the United States meets the requirements. However, the
principles are very ambiguous and leave room for one’s own interpretation. Rule
two states: “There must be a just cause”. Is it a just cause when you aid an
allied force? Is it a just cause when you are trying to promote peace amongst
two other countries? These actions would constitute as moral cause rather than a
just cause. Any state going to war will believe that their cause is just; there
needs to be a clear definition of what a just cause is. Rule three states: “War
must be a last resort”. I feel like this principle goes unnoticed; I do not
believe nations use war as their last resort, but as their first or second
choice. Nations go to war for different reasons: political, economic,
religious, etc. hoping to accomplish their goal of destruction and defeat.
After a worthless attempt of trying to reconcile, nations automatically declare
war. Unnecessary destruction can be avoided if war was the last resort. Rule
four states: “There must be a reasonable prospect of success”. I disagree with
this principle. How can war be successful after you lost so many soldiers and
civilians? Not only do you endure the pain of the deceased, traumatize many
individuals, but you now have a broken economy. War is one of the many reasons
why the United States is in debt now; war is expensive. Although a nation may
have accomplished their purpose at war, they are still unsuccessful because of
the damage they caused to their own nation.
I agree with Danielle that countries never actually choose war as a last resort. They sacrifice their economy and risk soldiers' lives for political, religious, or economic reasons. The United States is a prime example of a country that chooses to go to war over attempting to engage in peaceful relations. However, do you think this wrong for the War on Terror? Would you consider the use of drones to fight terrorists as not worth the cost to the economy?
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that particularly caught my attention when I was reviewing the guidelines that you point out was the first guideline: "war must be waged by a legitimate authority." For some time now, my parents, who are Syrian Americans have been frustrated with the current inaction on the part of the US in Syria, especially when US involvement of Libya was so key to the ousting of Ghadafi. I, on the other hand, have been unsure of whether the US has the ability or the authority to really do something.
ReplyDeleteAs Coady points out, when one nation interferes in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation, it has very serious consequences for concepts such as sovereignty and jurisdiction. Therefore, intervention, even when in the event of a humanitarian crisis, is something that should be taken up by the proper and legitimate authority. This leads me to ask the question: is the US government the proper authority? We are the world's superpower, but does that give us the ability to intervene whenever we deem it necessary? As much as I pain to see the people of Syria in the middle of this crisis, I have to say that I believe that superpower status does not invest us with the proper authority to intervene in Syria unilaterally. I believe that if the UN is unwilling to take action (mostly due to Russia and China's vetoes), then other international agencies like NATO should take the initiative.
What do you guys think?