The question of whether war can be justified is not in any way provided with neither a simple nor easy answer. As much as one would not like to admit it, it is nevertheless only in an idealised world, in a More’s utopia, that we can be certain that no war nor armed conflict will ever happen. In the meantime, wars continue to be fought and justified with reference to certain moral and legal values that may or may not make them legitimate in the context of the Westphalian State System upon which the current international society is based.In the following paper I will examine the question of whether war can be just through a case analysis of the conflict that took place between Russia and Georgia from the 7th – 16th of August 2008, also known as the Russo-Georgian War, the August War or simply the 2008 South Ossetia War
Table of Contents
Structure
Justifying War
Jus ad Bellum criteria
Jus in Bello criteria
Case: The Russo-Georgian War
The case for Jus ad Bellum in the War
The case for Jus in Bello in the War
Conclusions
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the ethical legitimacy of the 2008 Russo-Georgian War by applying the traditional Just War theory, specifically evaluating whether the actions of Russia and Georgia adhered to Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello criteria.
- Theoretical foundations of the Just War tradition
- Application of Jus ad Bellum principles to the conflict
- Analysis of Jus in Bello conduct during the war
- Critical assessment of sovereignty, intervention, and human rights violations
Excerpt from the Book
Justifying War
The question of whether war can be justified is not in any way provided with neither a simple nor easy answer. As much as one would not like to admit it, it is nevertheless only in an idealised world, in a More’s utopia, that we can be certain that no war nor armed conflict will ever happen. In the meantime, wars continue to be fought and justified with reference to certain moral and legal values that may or may not make them legitimate in the context of the Westphalian State System upon which the current international society is based.
Since the dawn of armed conflict wars have, with varying success, been justified by referring to such values as economic gains, religion, security, ideology, honour, survival, pre-emption and hence forth. What is common to all these justifications is that they all seek to justify the action of violating another state’s sovereignty or another people’s right not to be interfered with and that the justification of war can be targeted to the individual (the Leviathan who sends his army to war), a people (the mothers who send their sons to war), or the international society as a whole. There can be no doubt that war is inherently an evil to be avoided, but there may be times when other evils weigh so heavily that it is necessary (and justified) to turn to extreme measures in the use of force. What the just war tradition is based on, is a moral “cudos” that war is such an evil that it should be avoided at most (but not any) cost, and is in this sense rather restrictive in regards to warfare.
Summary of Chapters
Structure: Defines the scope of the paper, focusing on the Russo-Georgian conflict and the intention to apply Just War tradition as an analytical framework.
Justifying War: Explores the historical and theoretical background of the Just War tradition, detailing the primary criteria for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello.
Jus ad Bellum criteria: Outlines the fundamental rules for the initiation of war, such as just cause, right authority, last resort, proportionality, and probability of success.
Jus in Bello criteria: Discusses the ethical standards for conduct during warfare, including non-combatant immunity and the prohibition of certain types of weaponry.
Case: The Russo-Georgian War: Provides the historical context of the conflict over South Ossetia and notes the primary sources for the analysis.
The case for Jus ad Bellum in the War: Analyzes whether Russia and Georgia met the requirements for initiating a just war, finding significant discrepancies in their claims.
The case for Jus in Bello in the War: Examines the battlefield conduct of both nations, highlighting violations regarding civilian targets and the use of cluster munitions.
Conclusions: Summarizes the findings, concluding that both parties failed to meet the criteria for a "Just War," despite potential humanitarian justifications.
Keywords
Just War theory, Russo-Georgian War, Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, South Ossetia, military intervention, international law, civilian casualties, cluster munitions, state sovereignty, ethics of war, proportionality, armed conflict, genocide, humanitarian intervention.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this research paper?
The paper investigates the ethical validity of the 2008 Russo-Georgian War using the framework of Just War theory.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The research covers international ethics, the history of warfare traditions, and contemporary conflicts in the Caucasus region.
What is the main research question or objective?
The main objective is to determine if the war between Russia and Georgia can be considered "just" based on the classic criteria for entering and conducting war.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author employs a case analysis method, applying established Just War criteria (Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello) to the factual events of the 2008 conflict.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body evaluates the theoretical framework of Just War, the specific justifications for the conflict provided by both parties, and an analysis of their military conduct.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
The work is best characterized by terms such as Just War theory, Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, South Ossetia, and international law.
How does the author define the "last resort" criterion in this conflict?
The author discusses the difficulty of defining "last resort" and notes that diplomatic options failed, though the necessity of the Russian response remains a point of contention.
Did the author find the war to be "just"?
The author concludes that because both sides violated several criteria of the Just War tradition, the war itself cannot be categorized as "just."
What role does the South Ossetia region play in the analysis?
The region is the central point of contention in the conflict, and its disputed status as either independent or part of Georgia is vital to understanding the arguments regarding sovereignty.
Why are cluster munitions mentioned in the final analysis?
They are cited as an example of indiscriminate weapon use by both sides, which constitutes a clear violation of the Jus in Bello principles.
- Quote paper
- Soren Andersen (Author), 2009, Can war be just?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/146961
