As the Spaniard Francisco de Vitoria noticed, war can only be justified as response to previous wrongs. The issue here is the extent and manner of inflicted harm justifying the use of violence on behalf of third parties – the legal and moral preconditions for interventions. National defence should remain the central basis for just cause in the law and morality of war, however, in the area of tension between national self-determination and the most fundamental human rights, the prevalent principle of non-intervention reaches its limits and allows for humanitarian interventions as response to acts that shock the moral conscience of mankind.
In order to avoid instrumentalization or misemployment of these instruments and guarantee protection of peoples from human rights abuses, an institutionalization is absolutely essential; hence, proper international authority has to be established and has to conduct these interventions on multilateral grounds with care for the cultural circumstances – for the solution of societal problems and of nation-building cannot simply be imposed on nations from outside.
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Objectives & Topics
This essay explores the legal and moral tensions surrounding humanitarian interventions, specifically focusing on the justification of "just cause" in the context of national sovereignty and the protection of fundamental human rights.
- The theoretical foundations of "just cause" in traditional and modern just war theory.
- The distinction between national defense and humanitarian interventionism.
- The moral equality of combatants and the challenge of asymmetric warfare.
- Institutional challenges for the UN in authorizing and legitimizing military interventions.
- The necessity of "local legitimacy" in post-conflict nation-building.
Excerpt from the Book
Part I
The most basic distinction in just war theory is the difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The former is the generic concept of substantive reasons to resort to the illegal activity of war, whose legitimate use is limited to at most one side and thereby mainly relegated to the private sense of right and wrong of each sovereign; the later is engaged in the rules of proper conduct in war, which were thought to have a firm legal content, so it is assumed “that war is a law-governed and hence implicitly lawful activity with entitlements and restrictions that accrue equally to both sides.”4 According to the theory of just war, belligerence may not only be excusable but also justified in some circumstances - so there has to be a just cause to resort to war. However, just war theory’s idea of just cause was challenged in political philosophy by the idea of regular war setting just cause aside and favouring bilateral rights of war. In regular war, the belligerents are viewed as juridically equal opponents that are presumed to have entered the armed conflict in good faith, regardless of the cause having prompted the conflict, and so being entitled likewise to resort to the same armed force because of their mutual status of sovereignty. “[T]his conception of a bilateral jus ad bellum ran directly counter to the central ‘axiom’ of the just war doctrine according to which war could be warranted only as a unilateral response to prior wrongdoing.”5 By ignoring the idea of just cause, the doctrine of raison d’état would be reinstalled and any attempts to restrict the amount of wars would have been in vain, as each state could decide for itself whether going to war serves its vital interests regardless of any restricting law or morality.
Summary of Chapters
Part I: This section defines the basic principles of "just cause" within just war theory, exploring the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and critiques the notion of bilateral rights of war.
Part II: This section examines the conditions for just war as proposed by Thomas Aquinas, focusing on rightful intention and authority, and contrasts sovereignty as authority with sovereignty as responsibility.
Part III: This section discusses the moral universalist arguments for intervention as a perfect duty and analyzes the practical limits of humanitarian interventions, emphasizing the need for multilateralism and local legitimacy.
Keywords
Just War Theory, Humanitarian Intervention, Sovereignty, Human Rights, Jus ad bellum, Jus in bello, Multilateralism, Moral Equality, Just Cause, Non-intervention, Asymmetric Warfare, Responsibility to Protect, Legitimacy, Nationalism, Conflict.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this academic paper?
The paper examines the legal and moral justification for war, specifically analyzing the tension between state sovereignty and the international responsibility to intervene for humanitarian purposes.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The core themes include just war doctrine, the evolution of sovereignty from authority to responsibility, the ethics of military intervention, and the role of international organizations like the UN.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to provide a deductive analysis of just war theory to determine how humanitarian interventions can be justified without undermining the international legal order.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author employs a normative and analytical approach, scrutinizing existing political philosophy and international legal doctrines through the lens of deductive reasoning and theoretical frameworks.
What is discussed in the main body?
The main body is divided into three parts: the definition of just cause, the moral justification for human rights-based intervention, and the institutional requirements and limits of authorized military action.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Keywords include Just War Theory, Humanitarian Intervention, Sovereignty, Human Rights, Jus ad bellum, and Responsibility to Protect.
How does the author define the relationship between "jus ad bellum" and "jus in bello"?
The author discusses the traditional independence thesis—separating the cause of war from conduct in war—and presents the revisionist challenge which argues that moral status in war is influenced by the justice of the cause.
What role does "local legitimacy" play in the author's argument for intervention?
The author argues that military interventions should not aim to impose foreign political systems but must accommodate local political culture to be sustainable and avoid excessive coercion.
- Quote paper
- Andreas Weiß (Author), 2009, On Just Cause in Law and the Morality of War, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/310548
