Waging War:Filling the Gap in Just War Theory

Just War Theory.Jus in bello;Philosophy

Dubik, James MichaelDavid, Steven R. ;

Johns Hopkins University

关键词: Just War Theory.Jus in bello;    Philosophy;   

Others  :  https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37839/DUBIK-DISSERTATION-2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

瑞士|英语

来源: JOHNS HOPKINS DSpace Repository

【 摘 要 】

1.Statement of the Problem.Just war theory’s account of jus in bello is deficient.Michael Walzer, the prime representative of the prevailing view in the United States, restricts jus in bello to combat, war-fighting, then constructs a theory of responsibility and presents a set of principles that guide action when fighting: the principles of combatant/noncombatant distinction, proportionality, double effect and double intent, as well as the principle of due care/due risk—all of which arise amid the tension between winning and fighting well.2. Procedures and methods.This study establishes and describes the gap in the prevailing view’s treatment of jus in bello, then investigates alternative ways to fill that gap. Throughout, the study combines elements of moral philosophy, political philosophy, and strategic studies with historical and contemporary case illustrations of war.3. Results.This study finds that the prevailing view is necessary but insufficient; it omits jus in bello’s strategic, war-waging dimension which involves a tri-partite tension:(a) setting war aims and making strategy, policy, and campaign decisions that increase the probability of being right, or at least less wrong than those one is fighting; (b) translating those decisions into action to achieve war aims at the least cost, in lives and resources, and least risk to one’s political community and adapting aims, strategies, policies, and campaigns to the changing realities of war as they unfold; and (c)doing all of the foregoing while observing the war convention, sustaining the war’s legitimacy in the eyes of the political community, andmaintaining proper subordination of the military to civilian leadership. In the end, waging war is about using and risking lives: lives of the citizens-who-become-soldiers, lives of the innocent, and the life of the political community.The study finds that war-waging dimension of jus in bello is governed by five principles which arise from the above tension:the principles of continuous dialogue, final decision authority, managerial competency, war legitimacy, and resignation.4. Conclusions. This study concludes that a complete account of justice in the conduct of war, jus in bello, must include both its war-fighting and war-waging dimensions.