ETHICS OF WAR

REFERENCE NEWS

Israel-Palestine war shows a trend where people are losing the capacity to see individuals as they are and seeing them only in terms of a collective identity.

WAR ETHICS

War ethics refers to the study and application of moral principles to conflicts, determining when and how wars should be fought. It questions the reasons for waging war, the manner in which it is waged, and the nature of the peace that follows. The ethics surrounding war can be ascertained through various components and perspectives.

THREE COMPONENTS OF WAR ETHICS:

1. Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War): A war should be (a) fought for a just cause, (b) with the right intention, (c) should be declared by proper authority and (d) fought as a last resort.
   • For example Indian Peacekeeping forces in Sri Lanka, UN Peacekeeping forces in various African countries like Congo, etc.
2. Jus In Bello (Justice in War): There should be no disproportionate use of power. The principle of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants should be followed.
   • For example: the Balakot air strikes by India caused minimum harm to civilians and eliminated terrorist targets in Pakistan efficiently.
3. Jus Post Bellum (Justice After War):  War should end with the right intention, which should be declared publicly by the competent authority and the defeated party should be treated with respect.
   • For example: India was very generous in the peace terms of the Shimla Agreement after the 1971 war.

PERSPECTIVES ON WAR

Ancient Indian Perspective: Bhagavad Gita

• When Arjuna is filled with doubt and moral confusion about fighting in the battle. Krishna instructs Arjuna on his duty (dharma) as a warrior, which is to fight.
• However, the emphasis is on performing one's duty without attachment to the results, and for the sake of righteousness, rather than for personal gain or out of hatred. The concept is often termed Nishkama Karma (selfless action).
• This perspective underscores the importance of just intentions and the larger duty to uphold righteousness (Dharma).

Western Just War Tradition

• Rooted in Christian theology, but also developed by secular thinkers, the Just War tradition provides criteria for when it's permissible to go to war (jus ad bellum) and how wars should be conducted (jus in bello).
  • The Gulf War (1990-1991) was justified by many based on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait — a clear aggression.
  • A 1990 Gallup poll showed that 64% of Americans thought the U.S. was right in sending troops to the Persian Gulf.

Pacifism

• This perspective holds that war and violence are inherently immoral and should always be avoided.
• Important figures include Mahatma Gandhi, who promoted "ahimsa" (non-violence) as a philosophy and method of resistance.
• Buddhist: Generally advocates for peace and non-violence, but there are instances in Buddhist texts and history where war is recognized as a necessary evil.

Realism

• In the international relations context, realists argue that war is a natural outcome of the anarchic structure of the international system. States act based on their interests, primarily survival and power.
• Ethical considerations are secondary to national interests, and moral judgments are often viewed with scepticism.

• Eg: The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 was seen by many realists as a strategic move for geopolitical dominance. Post-annexation, a Levada poll in Russia showed over 85% support for President Putin, indicating nationalistic approval for geopolitical moves.

Marxism

• From a Marxist perspective, wars, especially in the modern era, are often seen as outgrowths of capitalist systems and the struggle for resources and markets.
• Imperialist wars, in which powerful nations dominate weaker ones, are particularly criticized.
• Eg: The Vietnam War was interpreted by some as an imperialistic move by the U.S. against communism. By 1968, Gallup polls indicated 53% of Americans disapproved of the U.S. handling of the Vietnam War.

Liberalism (in International Relations)

• Liberals believe that international institutions, democracy, and economic interdependence can reduce the chances of war. They often emphasize the importance of collective security arrangements and international law.
• While not strictly opposed to war, liberals believe that many wars can be avoided through diplomacy, cooperation, and building democratic institutions.
• Eg: The UN, during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, played a mediating role with Secretary-General U Thant proposing a "cooling-off" period, which was accepted by both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, helping to de-escalate the situation.

Feminist Perspectives

• Feminist scholars analyze how gender roles and patriarchy influence war and conflict. Some argue that masculinized notions of power and honor contribute to war's perpetuation.

Post-colonial Perspectives

• Post-colonial thinkers examine how colonial legacies influence contemporary conflicts. Wars, for them, can't be detached from histories of colonialism, domination, and exploitation.
• They emphasize the need to understand local histories and contexts when analyzing conflicts.
• Eg: The Rwandan Genocide (1994) had roots in colonial-era ethnic divisions.

Consequentialism / Utilitarianism:

• Focuses on the outcomes of actions. A war would be deemed ethical if it leads to the greatest good for the greatest number, even if certain individual rights are violated in the process.
• A consequentialist might support war if they believe it will lead to better overall results in the long run.
• Eg: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified by some as a means to end WWII quickly.

Deontology:

• Based on duty and rules rather than outcomes. For a deontologist, certain actions (like targeting innocent civilians) might be deemed always wrong, regardless of the potential outcomes.
• They may oppose war if it involves violating these intrinsic moral rules.(Eg: Geneva Convention principles)

Virtue Ethics:

• Focuses on the moral character of individuals rather than the act itself or its consequences. A war might be evaluated based on whether it helps cultivate virtues or vices in those who participate or are affected by it.
• Eg: The Bushido code of the Samurai emphasized virtues like honor, courage, and loyalty. The Bushido code influenced Japanese warriors and society for centuries.

Humanitarian Intervention:

• This perspective argues for the ethical responsibility of the international community to intervene in sovereign states when large-scale human rights abuses occur.
• The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is one such modern example.

Social Contract Theory:

• Rooted in the ideas of thinkers like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke, this perspective examines the implicit agreements within societies.
• Wars might be seen as breaches of these contracts, especially if they don't have the explicit support of the governed.
• Eg: The American Revolution was based partly on the idea that the British had violated the social contract.

The ethics of war is a multifaceted field, reflecting the complexities of human nature and societies. While various perspectives offer different solutions, they all grapple with a universal quest: the search for a moral compass in the tumultuous realm of warfare. As wars evolve with technology and geopolitics, so too must our ethical considerations, ensuring that even in conflict, humanity's moral core remains undiminished.

PRACTICE QUESTION

Q: What are war ethics? Do you agree with the saying, that ‘Everything is fair in love and war’?(10M)