Ethics of WarIntroductionHuman beings have been fighting each other since prehistoric times, and people have been discussing the rights and wrongs of it for almost as long.War is badThe Ethics of War starts by assuming that war is a bad thing, and should be avoided if possible, but it recognises that there can be situations when war may be the lesser evil of several bad choices.War is a bad thing because it involves deliberately killing or injuring people, and this is a fundamental wrong - an abuse of the victims' human rights.War ethicsThe purpose of war ethics is to help decide what is right or wrong, both for individuals and countries, and to contribute to debates on public policy, and ultimately to government and individual action.War ethics also leads to the creation of formal codes of war (e.g. the Hague and Geneva conventions), the drafting and implementation of rules of engagement for soldiers, and in the punishment of soldiers and others for war crimes.The three key questions are:

1. Is it ever right to go to war?2. When is it right to wage war?3. What is the moral way to conduct a war?

I. HISTORY OF WAR ETHICSHistoryThe discussion of the ethics of war goes back to the Greeks and Romans, although neither civilisation behaved particularly well in war.In the Christian tradition war ethics were developed by St Augustine, and later by St Thomas Aquinas and others.Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), a Dutch philosopher and author of De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (The Rights of War and Peace), wrote down the conditions for a just war that are accepted today.

The RomansCicero argued that there was no acceptable reason for war outside of just vengeance or self defence - in which he included the defence of honour.He also argued that a war could not be just unless it was publicly declared and unless compensation for the enemy's offence had first been demanded.Cicero based his argument on the assumption that nature and human reason biased a society against war, and that there was a fundamental code of behaviour for nations.

St AugustineSt Augustine was a 4th century Christian who lived in Algeria and Italy. He believed that the only just reason to go to war was the desire for peace.

“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.” Augustine

Augustine tried to reconcile Christian pacifism with the world as it actually was; to bring together the pacifist teachings of Jesus Christ with the obligations of Roman citizens - including Christians - to fight for their country when required to.Augustine accepted that there would always be wars. He thought that war was always a sin, and if there had to be a war, it should be waged with sadness.But Augustine said that war was always the result of sin, and that war was also the remedy for sin. And if war was the remedy for sin, then war could sometimes be justifiable - but only if it was a remedy for sin.Augustine made it clear that individuals and states (or the rulers of states) have different obligations when it came to war or violence.He stated that Christians did not have the right to defend themselves from violence, however they could use violence if it was necessary to defend the innocent against evil.The rulers of states, he said, had an obligation to maintain peace, and this obligation gave them the right to wage war in order to maintain peace. It also gave them the right to wage war in order to ensure justice and even impose punishment - something that would not be accepted nowadays.

“A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” Augustine

This was because injustice was a greater evil than war, and it was proper to carry out a lesser evil if it would prevent a greater evil.But a war is only just if those waging it do so with the intention of doing good. Punishing the enemy is not a sufficient motive on its own.

“ True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandisement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” Augustine

Augustine was much less concerned with how people should be treated during a war, because to him, physical death was not a particularly important thing.

Wars that are not Just WarsThere are some long-standing traditions of war ethics which are very different from the Just War tradition.

War is right if it is in the national interestThis doctrine, in the most extreme form, says that if a war is in a country's national interest then it is morally right for that country to go to war.

This looks as if it's giving permission to powerful nations to invade any country that has resources they need, or that is harbouring terrorists that they want to capture. But in fact, considerations of ethics and justice still have a significant effect.If a country is seen to behave unjustly it creates great political problems for itself. Invading another country, even if it has something you want, may well produce more trouble than benefit.

The Right of the RulerThis says that the decision of the ruler of a state on whether to wage war is final, and there is no moral argument that can be used against it.This tradition is reflected in the phrase 'the divine right of kings', meaning that the ruler's actions carry with them God's support.While this seems repellent to modern thinking, it was supported by the Christian church during many periods of history, when the monarch was guided by the church in war decisions.

Holy warsReligious leaders have sometimes declared that there was a religious duty on believers to go to war. This idea appears often in the Bible and has been used to justify suicide bombing in recent times. Centuries ago it was the main justification given for the Crusades.

Who is the aggressor?

The aggressor is the country that starts the war.But the United Nations definition which is quoted below defines the aggressor more narrowly, as the country that first uses armed force.This definition poses a problem when one country takes 'aggressive action' against another without using military force. If the victim country uses military force in response it appears to be the aggressor and so to be in the wrong according to international law, but morally it may be in the right.This problem is discussed in more detail under pre-emptive strikes.

The UN definitionThe United Nations has defined aggression like this:

“Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.”

In article two of the resolution the definition is expanded:

“The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression.”

The UN definition has two elements - for an act to be aggression it must be:

- in contravention of the UN Charter, and- the first such use of force in a conflict

War of aggression is always wrongThe UN states that a war of aggression is a crime against international peace.Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.Nothing, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, can be a justification for aggression.The UN also states that territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is always unlawful.

II. WAR CRIMESWhat acts are war crimes?War crimes are defined by the Geneva Conventions, the precedents of the Nuremberg Tribunals, an older area of law referred to as the Laws and Customs of War, and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY).

War crimes fall into three groups - or four if you include genocide.Crimes against peace

planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances

participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the above

War crimesViolations of the laws or customs of war, including:

Atrocities or offences against persons or property, constituting violations of the laws or customs of war murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population in

occupied territory murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas killing of hostages torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments plunder of public or private property wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages devastation not justified by military necessity

Crimes against humanityAtrocities and offences committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, including:

murder extermination enslavement deportation mass systematic rape and sexual enslavement in a time of war other inhumane acts

persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated

GenocideGenocide is considered one of the most severe crimes against humanity. It means the deliberate attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.The term was coined in 1943 by the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin who combined the Greek word 'genos' (race or tribe) with the Latin word 'cide' (to kill).

After witnessing the horrors of the Holocaust - in which every member of his family except his brother and himself was killed - Dr Lemkin campaigned to have genocide recognised as a crime under international law.

His efforts led to the adoption of the UN Convention on Genocide in December 1948, which came into force in January 1951.

DefinitionGenocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in

whole or in part imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Individuals are chosen as victims purely, simply and exclusively because they are members of the target group, and not because of anything an individual has done.Genocide is a crime under international law even if it is not a crime in the country where it takes place, and incitement to commit genocide is also a crime.

III. JUST WARIntroductionThe just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things:

taking human life is seriously wrong states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to

use force and violenceThe theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought.Although it was extensively developed by Christian theologians, it can be used by people of every faith and none.

PurposeThe aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).Just War Theory provides a useful framework for individuals and political groups to use for their discussions of possible wars.The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.

'Just', or merely 'permissible'?The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it's actually a good thing.But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil.

OriginsThe principles of a Just War originated with classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero and were added to by Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

ElementsThere are two parts to Just War theory, both with Latin names:

Jus ad bellum: the conditions under which the use of military force is justified. Jus in bello: how to conduct a war in an ethical manner.

A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. Some wars fought for noble causes have been rendered unjust because of the way in which they were fought.

What is a 'just cause'?A war is only just if it is fought for a reason that is justified, and that carries sufficient moral weight. The country that wishes to use military force must demonstrate that there is a just cause to do so.The main just cause is to put right a wrong. Sometimes a war fought to prevent a wrong from happening may be considered a just war.In modern times wars to defend the innocent are increasingly regarded as just (which fits with the idea in some religious literature that it is better to defend an innocent than to defend oneself).

Just causes

Self-defence: invasion: The clearest example of a just cause is self-defence against an aggressor. For example when an

enemy has crossed your borders and invaded your territory. But an actual invasion is not required. The self-defence cases below are less obviously just causes for war - whether they are or not depends on how severe a particular case is:

o assassination of a prominent person: - a monarch or presidento attack on national honour: (eg burning the flag, attacking an embassy)o attack on state religiono economic attack:(trade embargo or sanctions)o attack on a neighbour or allyo preemptive strike: attacking the enemy to prevent an anticipated attack by them. Preemptive

strikes may no longer be acceptable by UN members, since the Charter says that short of actual attack, "all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means" (Article 2:3)

Assisting an invaded friendly nation. Human rights violations: Another common example is putting right a violation of human rights so severe

that force is the only sensible response. To punish an act of aggression: This is not accepted by everyone. Some people would say that a war of

punishment can never be a just war.

What is a Just War?Six conditions must be satisfied for a war to be considered just:

The war must be for a just cause. The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority. The intention behind the war must be good. All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first. There must be a reasonable chance of success. The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

How should a Just War be fought?A war that starts as a Just War may stop being a Just War if the means used to wage it are inappropriate.

Innocent people and non-combatants should not be harmed. Only appropriate force should be used.

o This applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used. Internationally agreed conventions regulating war must be obeyed.