Humanitarian action: a Just action?

[Valin]

I hate to sound relativistic, but the idea of Just War, to me is just something to let others sleep well. After all it wasn't until the 20th Century with moralists like Reinhold Niebuhr that anyone even thought about the idea of there being such a thing as moral war, as a function of its structure or motivation.

If I may...
(Yes I know it's Wikipedia...but it's a place to start
wikipedia: Just War

The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero.[3] However its importance is connected to Christian medieval theory beginning from Augustine of Hippo[4] and Thomas Aquinas.[5] The first work dedicated specifically to it was De bellis justis of Stanisław of Skarbimierz, who justified war of the Kingdom of Poland with Teutonic Knights. Francisco de Vitoria justified conquest of America by the Kingdom of Spain. With Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius just war theory was replaced by international law theory, codified as a set of rules, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications.[citation needed] The importance of the theory of just war faded with revival of classical republicanism beginning with works of Thomas Hobbes.

The Just War Theory is an authoritative Catholic Church teaching confirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in 1983. More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force"
(snip)

Point is The Just War Theory goes back a lot farther than Reinhold Niebuhr.

[Abu Suleyman]

If I may...
(Yes I know it's Wikipedia...but it's a place to start
wikipedia: Just War

The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero.[3] However its importance is connected to Christian medieval theory beginning from Augustine of Hippo[4] and Thomas Aquinas.[5] The first work dedicated specifically to it was De bellis justis of Stanisław of Skarbimierz, who justified war of the Kingdom of Poland with Teutonic Knights. Francisco de Vitoria justified conquest of America by the Kingdom of Spain. With Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius just war theory was replaced by international law theory, codified as a set of rules, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications.[citation needed] The importance of the theory of just war faded with revival of classical republicanism beginning with works of Thomas Hobbes.

The Just War Theory is an authoritative Catholic Church teaching confirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in 1983. More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force"
(snip)

Point is The Just War Theory goes back a lot farther than Reinhold Niebuhr.

Yes and no. The ideas that you presented there are all different ideas of "Just War" from what people mean today when they say just war. THe case of Cicero, the Catholic Church, and so on all argued that certain wars were just because they were forwarding a Just Cause. As such the war, and whatever were involved in it was just. Now that might seem the same as humanitarian issues but it is not, because sometimes to win the war and forward the just cause, you allowed thousands to starve and enemy troops to bleed to death on the battlefield. In other words, it was the ends that offered the justification for the war. You see this a lot in pre-WWII literature, where "this is a just war because the Nazi's are evil," and so on.

After WWII, and really, in Europe after WWI people began to realize that both sides make the same argument. This wasn't really a challenge to those who thought that war was evil in and of itself, and indeed, many people decided that fighting was simply not worth it. This became a problem when people in the military (specifically the French military) started to think that way. In essence, western europe laid down and died before Fascism.

Many important thinkers, but Reinhold Neibuhr was one of the earliest and one of the most lucid, attempted to demonstrate that there was actually a Method for fighting wars that made it just. They did this to show that Liberal Democracies could fight wars, and that they were not the same as totalitarian regimes that they were opposing. Basically, they tried to set up an objective litmus test whereby both participants and observers of electoral democracies could know that their wars were not the same as the blood thirsty wars totalitarians waged.

In essence, the just war is a war waged by a state, not for its own interests. The way that you know that a state is not waging a war for its own interests is that it turns the declaration of wars over to outside bodies, like the UN. This is the moral argument that people use to beat up George Bush and the Iraq invasion, and what most people are appealing to when they say that a war is illegal. Under this definition, war is not justified by its ends (e.g. spreading a religion, freeing a people, creating stability in the system) but by the way in which it is waged (i.e. you go to the UN and they tell you that it is ok to go to war)

It is clear, based on the negotiations surrounding the establishment of the UN and the League of Nations that they were aware of this reason for existing, and they clearly thought that humanitarian type missions would fall as just. However, the immediate problem became that, just like before, all wars have sides, and helping in any way helps one side. Moreover, in these organizations states vote their interest. Therefore, the UN is much more likely to authorize force for humanitarian reasons if more states stand to gain from such actions than stand to lose. Of course, you also have veto powers to consider, as well.

Naturally, states who have humanitarian problems are usually just trying to implement a policy, no matter how egregious that policy may seem to us, and they don't care for the undercutting of that attempted implementation by an outside body. Indeed, no matter how well intentioned, humanitarian aid remains a subtle way of forwarding one side over the other, and of forwarding ones own policies. Indeed, the entire UN process has become more of a way of amalgamating interests rather than extricating them from the process.

Of course, the easy way around all this is to recognize that there is a right and a wrong, exactly like all those old thinkers did, and that sometimes you are going to have to fight a war. A war is just if you are on the right side, and not because you called for a vote on it. This is not to say that there should not be humanitarian considerations, but generally the best way to end a humanitarian crisis is to win. Make sure the right side wins. I know that it is easier said than done, but I would rather try to get the answer right, than muddle around with a bunch of answers we already know are wrong.

[Rex Brynen]

Yes and no. The ideas that you presented there are all different ideas of "Just War" from what people mean today when they say just war.

The difference here is that between jus ad bellum (that is, whether the reason for war is morally just) and jus in bello (that is, whether the manner in which the war is fought is morally just). Certainly attention the the latter increased exponentially during the 20th (and 21st) century. However, the idea of laws of armed conflict are considerably older than this (especially in Islam), and although ancient and medieval warfare often seems unlimited, there were also a great many examples of self-restraint (usually on a combination of normative and practical grounds).

Personally, I think these changes are a good thing--the "ends justify the means" is a very slippery slope, and I would like to think that the society I live in tries very hard not to slide too far down it, even if the opponent does.

[Abu Suleyman]

Personally, I think these changes are a good thing--the "ends justify the means" is a very slippery slope, and I would like to think that the society I live in tries very hard not to slide too far down it, even if the opponent does.

I agree to an extent. I would not agree that all ends justify any means. My view is that ends and methods are both necessary but not sufficient conditions of justification. Any attempt to define a war as just without looking at both of them will result in a lot of tail chasing.

BTW, love the Latin phrases.

[Rex Brynen]

BTW, love the Latin phrases.

The only subject I ever failed, actually!

[M-A Lagrange]

Hey Guys

If you do not like french army... Neither do I But probably not for the same reasons. (Had my ass save a couple time by foreign legion and was happy to see them. Must say they're good guys).

To come back to the Just war: what abu suleyman is quiete true. But there is a difference between looking to criminalise war, which is what the UN under anglo saxon NGO (espacially Oxfam and some others) are looking for. And setting rules for a just use of war, which is the spirit of the UN charter.
To follow Abu Suleyman, please take time to look at Carl Schmitt theories (I know, I am repeating my self). But I will defenitively go for some readings of Reinhold Neibuhr.

To complete Rex brynen, jus in bello is an important thing. And is basically what all of us are looking at into war. What Manu code says in -1750 is almost the same as Geneva Convention: do not kill a desarmed enemi, do not kill civilian... In Deteronomy the judes declared that killing women and children under the age to carry weapons is a crime, that destroying agricultural land also... So looking for an honorable way to make war is something that all of us have been looking for.

The use of violence is not something evil, it is the way you use it and the objective you're persuing that will make it good or evil. I am sorry but fighting the Nazi was a ####ing good thing. But bombing german town was terrorism and UK knew it. On this see Michael Walzer Just and Unjust wars.

How using action dedicated to limit the use of violence in a positive way (like healing wounded, protecting women and children...) to conduct military ation can be seen as a just/fair way to conduct war? (does not mean I am against).

To come to Stan.
Well, it is all the problem that your pointing out. Having a discriminative approach of distributing aid in a location leads to violence among civilian. In counter insurgencies, this is counter productive. We faced the same in DRC in 2007/2008 and I spend with a couple of foes a hell of a time to explain it to the UN.
But in a military approach of relief, being discriminative may help. What you have to target is a larger range of people. If you target individuals, you may be accurate but you will be counter productive as you put a side part of the immediat neighbourhood. And then generate violence among communities.
You better target a larger audiance. Targetting villages would be my advise (not saying I have the holy truth in my hands). This allows to inpulse an autoregulation obligation in the community. But providing aid is limitative, you have to couple it with security in a barter like: you help me and I protect you and provide aid. You try to #### me I stop every thing and even more. But that would defenitevely fall under unjust war and unjust humanitarian action.

I am actually looking at what to do for drug production. In my perception it would more or less follow the same pattern for producers than mining in DRC.

[William F. Owen]

Just War
I have to say I am pretty cynical about any construct of a "Just War", especially one that is largely the product of European Culture.
However, I do believe no armed force should "target" civilians. That is not to say there are circumstance where their deaths are largely unavoidable.
I also believe that any man, woman or child, that carries, operates, or directly supports weapons systems should not expect their gender or age to protect them. That is not to say that good judgement and some compassion may not be called for. I don't want anyone killing some 8-year old kid carrying ammunition for his father. - no problem with killing the dad who allows his kid to do that though!

[Stan]

To come to Stan.
Well, it is all the problem that your pointing out. Having a discriminative approach of distributing aid in a location leads to violence among civilian. In counter insurgencies, this is counter productive. We faced the same in DRC in 2007/2008 and I spend with a couple of foes a hell of a time to explain it to the UN.
But in a military approach of relief, being discriminative may help. What you have to target is a larger range of people.

Hey MA,
In our case, the water being pumped (and the food provided by NGOs) was intended for everyone to include those who were actively part of the genocide. All told approx. 800,000 in two camps. It was however the Zairian army opposed to free drinking water and not the target population (Tutsi, Hutu, etc.). There were far worse things the FAZ did back then besides sell water.

I appreciate and understand your view on the issue. I think most of us also felt that we could have been more discriminative with the provision of relief, but that was not our choice to make at the time with over 4,000 people dying of cholera each day.

Targeting villages would be my advise (not saying I have the holy truth in my hands). This allows to impulse an auto regulation obligation in the community. But providing aid is limited, you have to couple it with security in a barter like: you help me and I protect you and provide aid. You try to #### me I stop every thing and even more. But that would definitively fall under unjust war and unjust humanitarian action.

Although I was talking in general about the refugee crisis in Goma, I'd like to comment on your post further.

Having lived amongst the Zairois for nearly a decade in friendlier times, I have to confess that most of the villages there were already (literally) targets of their own military and government. Any sort of pressure we could have applied would have be a waste of time, and resulted in just more dead villagers. (Unjust) Humanitarian actions should also take into account that more people will ultimately suffer from our inaction.

Honestly, much like Tom opined, I was hoping Mount Nyiragongo would have busted her seams and sent those folks to the promise land.

Regards, Stan