« Our Time in the Sun | Main | Polls and Demographic Trends »
February 8, 2005
Just War Series - Last Resort
Introduction to Just War Theory
I. Recourse to War - jus ad bellum
- Just Cause
- Competent Authority
- Comparative Justice
- Right Intention
- Last Resort
- Probability of Success
- Proportionality
II. Conduct in War - jus in bello
1. Discrimination
2. Proportionality
"Last Resort" is a term that is thrown around quite a bit by politicians and punduts on the even of a possible miliarty action. The purpose of this post is to examine what it means in the light of Just War Theory.
The Last Resort test means that a state should exhaust peaceful alternatives. But what does this mean? There are three things that we need to consider
1) Nations are unwilling to put their vital interests in the hands of third parties such as the United Nations or World Court.
We are currently embroiled over the issue of whether the United States had to get United Nations Security Council authority to invade Iraq. All of the talk about how we supposedly violated international law misses the point; no nation on this planet will, in the end, put it's most vital interests in the hands of any third party.
Many of the nations who proclaim their fealty to such institutions do so because they cannot imagine themselves in a situation where their vital interests are in such danger that war is necessary, or because they cannot imagine a situation in which their "allies" will seriously disagree with them. They have lost their sense of history, and imagine themselves forever secure in a the utopia of the "international community." But in the end, when the chips are down, nations will "do what they have to do" to protect themselves, and not consider the opinions of others.
At home, many of the critics simply see their own country as the greatest danger in the world, and see international institutions as the only restraint available.
2) Some differences are irreconcilable
People who are schooled in "negotiation theory" may fall into the trap of assuming that all problems can be resolved, or at least a clash averted, "if we only sit down and talk about it in good faith." They tend to see wars as the result of misunderstandings, and the solution in terms of setting up cultural exchanges.
Books like "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" and it's counterparts work only with both parties share a similar worldview, and agree that matters can and must be solved without violence. It is an excellent tool for negotiating conflict within the West. But it is misused when people think that such techniques work in the international arena.
Ultimately there are some differences that cannot be negotiated. There are some disputes that cannot be resolved at the bargaining table. There are some ideologies that are fundamentally at odds with each other. While we must never rule out negotiations, we must not be at their mercy either.
3) Lets try One More Thing....
More newspaper print has been spilled over the idea of war as a "last resort" than any other aspect of Just War Theory. It is easy to say that we should negotiate and try to resolve our differences peacefully and only resort to war when all else fails. But what does this mean? How many economic sanctions must we put in place and how long must we let them work before giving up? How many Security Council resolutions are enough? One writer reminds us that "Lastness is a metaphysical concept that is never really achieved, because another effort to avert war can always be attempted."
These are questions that reasonable people may disagree about. There are some who want to start bombing at the drop of a hat, and others who will seemingly never approve force unless Washington DC is being stormed.
Some say that "last resort" is automatically violated whenever one talks about preemptive war. It is said that we must wait until a strike against us is "imminent".
It seems to me that such an attitude is more in tune with a World War I view of war, whereby nations took weeks or months to mobilize. Even by mid-century, most nations would have some warning. Nuclear strike aircraft and missiles demolished this view. Even though those days are mostly gone, it seems to me that with modern technology regional (or even smaller) powers certainly have the capability to strike us with little or no warning.
The bottom line is that there is no right answer to the question of "last resort", except that we must reject the extremes of those who would go to war quickly, and those who would have us never act.
Posted by Tom at February 8, 2005 9:52 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/293
