The purpose of my examination of war is to question whether the resort to war is ever justified.

Authors Avatar

Michael Starkman

Professor Shue

October 14, 2004

Paper Assignment #1

War

        

        It is widely accepted, that killing another human being intentionally or carelessly is always wrong. Wars kill and maim human beings in great magnitude and therefore must always be considered wrong.  In a sense, there is a presumption against killing.  Yet, I see clear difference between the assassination of a murderous dictator and a stabbing in a drunken brawl.  And so, whether killing caused by war  is always wrong depends on whether there are any justified exceptions to the general presumption against it.  There are serious justifications for the resort to war and they “begin from the acknowledgement that the infliction of death and destruction is normally wrong and can, at best, be justified only as an exception to the general rules against the infliction of such harms (Shue, 735).”

        Therefore, the purpose of my examination of war is to question whether the resort to war is ever justified.  This will take the form of an enquiry, “into whether actions that in ordinary circumstances would be wrong are, in the special context of some kinds of war, either not the kind of action they appear to be and therefore not strictly speaking wrong (not the intentional or careless killing of innocent persons and therefore not evil) or are indeed wrong but nevertheless justifiable here, all things considered (necessary evil). (Shue, 736).”  It is my intention then, to argue that wars of self defence and preemption under extreme circumstances are justified, whereas wars of prevention are never justified.  

        The discussion, is organized as follows.  First, I will lay out the prevailing doctrine of just war which is most easily illustrated by Michael Walzer’s legalist paradigm.  The aim of this is to explain that the importance of the legalist paradigm lies in the importance of a no-first-use of force rule for prevention and the importance of state sovereignty.  By clearly establishing Walzer’s view of the legalist paradigm and state sovereignty, it will be clear what is wrong with war, and that is that it violates the basic human rights.   I will then go on to outline the justifications for war fought in self defence.  Once self defence is established as a justified means to engage in war,  I will argue that preemptive strikes are justified under extreme conditions by not only the target of the threat but also by third parties states who are appointed by the international community.  Parallel to this argument, I will reject the notion of preventive wars, for I fear that giving the green light to preventive war makes war to frequent and too routine.          

        

The Legalist Paradigm, Sovereignty and Self - Defence

        The United Nations charter requires members to “refrain...from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any state, (Luban, 211).”  Michael Walzer also speaks of political independence and the right to defend it within the legalist paradigm; “Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act. (Walzer, 61-62).”  What is common in both the United Nations charter and the legalist paradigm is (1) the idea of defined state or sovereignty and (2) the notion of aggression against such sovereignties.  Understanding these two fundamentals of the legalist paradigm, sovereignty and aggression, is essential to understanding why war is just in self defence.  

        On Walzer’s theory outlined in the legalist paradigm, state sovereignty lies in the right of self determination, or “communal autonomy (Walzer, 90).”  That is, the right of peoples to work out their own fate independent of foreign coercion or control.  Although Walzer speaks of community, it is clear that the rights of communities and the consequent sovereignty lie in the basic rights of individuals.  Thus, individuals have the right to determine their own communities, and their own fate.  Of course, Walzer explains that not every independent state is free, “but the recognition of sovereignty the only way we have of establishing an arena in within which freedom can be fought for and (sometimes) won (Walzer, 89).”  I conclude then, that human beings alike sovereignties have basic rights and these rights cannot be violated.  Once this fundamental principle of human rights is accepted, it can effectively argued what is wrong with some acts of war, namely aggression against sovereignty and the basic human rights thereof.

Join now!

        Within our current system, centred around state sovereignty a fundamental principal is non intervention and non-aggression of one state into the affairs of another states sovereignty.  According to the legalist paradigm and its self determination argument, the crime of aggression lies in breach of sovereignty because breaching sovereignty violates individuals human rights.    

Suffice to say,  not only does principle of non-intervention and non aggression apply to external endeavours by one sovereignty into another defined sovereignty but the principal of non-intervention and aggression also applies to a sovereignties internal endeavours.   And so, the most easily accepted justification for the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay