Last week, I mentioned that in Christopher Toner's article The Logical Structure of Just War Theory, I had begun to find a working thesis for my paper. I mentioned that th critical issue here was the so-called "Dependency Claim," wherein one cannot have in bello without ad bellum justice, a claim that I find to be abhorrent.
This week, after mining Toner's bibliography a bit, I believe I have found a small little sub-niche in the just war literature, wherein it's apparently a rather significant debate as to whether or not this dependency claim is true. Of interest this week is Jeff McMahan's article, The Ethics of Killing in War, wherein McMahan attacks the notion that the two are logically independent concerns by pointing out that practically speaking, most soldiers trust their leaders when they say that they have ad bellum authority and, indeed, it is critical even for an unjust army to maintain this discipline in order to function in bello, lest order be completely lost and the army goes rogue.
More importantly, he brings up a thought experiment: what if you had unjust combatants fighting a just war? What if you had soldiers committing atrocities in what is otherwise an entirely justified instance of warfare? Traditionally, such a scenario would be explained via a resort to the distinction of ad bellum and in bello, but McMahan points out that even if the unjust soldiers at the moment have unjust goals, they still have-in their capacities as soldiers-"subordinate aims" that is still otherwise just; a soldier does not necessarily stop caring about the overall goals of a war when he commits atrocity.
While I need to reread this article (since it's rather technical and I'm not fully sure I understand the argument,) I can tell here that this article is going to be one of the more critical articles to use in my paper. Furthermore, after some more reading, I believe I can reformulate my topic as "Given the entire debate on the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and given that St. Augustine is arguably the father of modern just war theory, what are his beliefs on this distinction, and what influence should that have on this debate?"
McMahan, Jeff. "The Ethics of Killing in War." Ethics 114, no. 4 (2004): 693-733.
I'm not sure I understand the implications of the thought experiment. If the soldiers are acting in unjust ways the war can still be justified? Seems to me like there might be a lot more to just war theory than the original casus belli.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I think it goes without saying that the Allies were justified in invading Europe. If they had gone in with a just cause but then decided to conquer and annex Germany, would it still have been a just war?
Can you have an unjustified war with just soldiers? Or are the soldiers acting unjustly necessarily if the war is unjust?
Suppose the Axis had just tried to conquer the world in such a way that they did not commit any atrocities. That means no holocaust, obviously. Also it would mean no targeting of civilians, only killing uniformed soldiers and treating POWs in a humane way (I'm looking at you, Japan.)
Really interesting stuff
You're getting on the right track with your reply; to answer, you can indeed have a just cause even if your soldiers are acting unjustly. For instance, since you mentioned WWII, a good example is the Soviet invasion of Berlin: while undoubtedly this was a just cause (for the Nazi regime needed to be put down,) the Soviet soldiers did some absolutely horrible things to the soldiers they captured, the civilians they murdered, and the town they looted.
DeleteHey Tyler, what's the importance of the interdependency of ad bellum and jus in bello? What are some complications if they are interdependent?
ReplyDeleteFrom a Kantian point of view I suppose the two are interdependent. Unjust intentions and just actions is not the same as just intentions and just actions.
Basically, the distinction is mostly important in light of an army where soldiers do not always have a say in their "cause"-since a soldier has no say in his cause, it seems hardly fair to say he is nevertheless unjust even if he acts within all the accepted rules of war just because his superiors are on a power trip.
DeleteThis topic is highly thought provoking. I'm curious to see the criterion involved for the pursuit of a just war. One thing I'm having trouble understanding though, is the atrocities bit. To me it seems that if a soldier were to engage in a conflict, with thoughts of committing atrocities as reparation for their duty (examples that come to mind are pillaging and rape), the war (for the individual) is unjustified; basically because their reason for fighting in the war would also entail the pursuit of unjust desires.
ReplyDeleteIf this were the case, it would have greater implications for nearly all wars. Although pillaging may have run out of style in the denotative sense, perhaps we still enact forms of it today. For example, raising the war debt of the already crippled economy of a recently liberated country. We aren't raiding homes and thieving goods, but we are creating a more strenuous environment for the citizens.
Anyways, I'm excited to see where your research takes you dude. Hopefully some of these questions come up in your paper. Godspeed!
Your concern is mentioned in later authors than Augustine, who mentions it but doesn't go very far with it. For modern just war theory, it is highly important that one's intentions be the same as the stated just cause for the war-just like you claim, it is highly unjust to manipulate a just cause so that you can get in some looting and pillaging along the way, despite how common an occurrence this was historically.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete