“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” Words were written by Ernest Hemingway depicting the vile nature of war, while strengthening the narrative that war is groundless. Much like Hemingway, many others also share the same view on the atrocious aspects of war itself. Warfare has been witnessed in all parts of the world for centuries. Through the study of history, we are aware of the evolution of methods of warfare. International humanitarian law has helped guide nations to “legitimately” conduct acts of war against others. The toughest pill to swallow though, however obvious, is that one aspect of war will always be inevitable – the casualties. This consequently results in the majority view that war is good for nothing. Then the vital question that must be addressed is that if the effects of violence constitute more harm than good, why is it an available option for nations to resort to? Furthermore, why does the law of war differ for state and non-state actors? In this essay, I would like to examine the conditional nature of war within the international sphere by paying close attention to the Sri Lankan Civil War (1983-2009) as an example to portray the disparities of armed conflict between state and non-state actors, and how the view of such acts are deemed differently through the use of the “Just War” theory.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historical Context
3. Events of Conflict
4. Political Violence Defended by “Just War” Theory
5. Conclusion
Research Objective and Themes
The primary objective of this essay is to critically examine the conditional nature of war within the international sphere, focusing on the Sri Lankan Civil War to analyze the disparities of armed conflict between state and non-state actors and the applicability of the "Just War" theory in justifying political violence.
- Evolution of the "Just War" theory and its criteria.
- Historical roots of ethnic tensions in Sri Lanka post-independence.
- Escalation of conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE.
- Ethical and legal justification for non-state actors using violence against oppression.
- The impact of international perception on internal ethnic conflicts.
Excerpt from the Book
Political Violence Defended by “Just War” Theory:
By having described the main events of the Sri Lankan Civil War, it gives us an understanding of how dire the situation was. The international community only began to take notice of the undeniable oppression Tamils were facing once the war commenced. However, during the course of the 30-year war, acts of political violence being perceived by the international community was viewed through a negative lens. India, Canada, the United States and member states of the European Union listed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation. However, through the use and understanding of the Just War theory, we are able to justify the actions of the LTTE. It is important to keep highlighting the subjugation caused by the Sri Lankan government and its continued effects even during the war. Prior to the commencement of political violence, peaceful protests and rallies proved to be ineffective as well as a waste of resources. Oppression being endured for decades in one’s own homeland would understandably result in groups utilising warfare as a last resort. Of course, the idea of “significant oppression” is subjective upon the perception of the viewer but for the purposes of justifying LTTE’s actions, one must recognise that this oppression is an imminent threat to life or liberty. To fully comprehend the purpose of this essay, discretion must be given to the oppressed, whilst always keeping in mind the roots of such a conflict.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the core dilemma of war's inherent violence versus the necessity of political resistance, framing the research around the Sri Lankan Civil War.
2. Historical Context: This section details the origins of ethnic division in Sri Lanka, emphasizing the impact of British colonial policies and post-independence majoritarian rule on the Tamil minority.
3. Events of Conflict: This chapter outlines the chronology of the civil war, highlighting pivotal events such as the burning of the Jaffna library, the Black July pogroms, and the rise of the LTTE.
4. Political Violence Defended by “Just War” Theory: This section applies the principles of "Just War" theory (jus ad bellum and jus in bello) to analyze whether the LTTE's use of violence can be ethically justified against systemic state oppression.
5. Conclusion: The concluding chapter summarizes how political violence, despite its brutality, forced state reforms and suggests that international acknowledgment of such struggles could have potentially shortened the conflict.
Keywords
Sri Lanka, Ethnic Conflict, Civil War, LTTE, Just War Theory, Political Violence, Tamil, Sinhalese, Self-determination, Oppression, Sovereignty, Human Rights, Majoritarian Rule, Terrorism, Peace Accords
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this work?
The work examines the legitimacy of political violence by non-state actors, specifically analyzing the LTTE during the Sri Lankan Civil War through the lens of the "Just War" theory.
What are the central themes of the essay?
Key themes include ethnic oppression, the failure of peaceful protest, the ethics of armed resistance, and the perceived double standards of the international community regarding state versus non-state violence.
What is the primary research question?
The essay explores whether the use of political violence by an oppressed ethnic minority can be justified when legal and peaceful avenues for change have been systematically blocked by the state.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author uses historical analysis of the Sri Lankan conflict combined with a normative philosophical framework, specifically the "Just War" theory and Social Contract theory, to evaluate the conduct of the belligerents.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The body covers the colonial roots of Sri Lankan ethnic friction, the escalation of the civil war, key massacres and peace attempts, and a theoretical justification of LTTE resistance.
Which keywords best characterize the research?
The study is defined by terms such as Sri Lanka, ethnic conflict, LTTE, Just War theory, political violence, and self-determination.
How does the author interpret the role of the international community?
The author argues that the international community often maintains a biased, state-centric view, labeling non-state resistance as terrorism without adequately addressing the underlying ethnic oppression that triggers such violence.
Does the "Just War" theory support the actions of the LTTE?
The author argues that the LTTE met most of the "Just War" criteria, particularly "just cause," and suggests that the theory's focus on state actors should be broadened to account for non-state groups fighting against genocidal-level oppression.
- Citation du texte
- Mariam Shakil (Auteur), 2020, Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka. Can the use of political violence ever be justified?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/932841
