The Just War Tradition

If war is an act of judgment can any of the following be a judicial act?

1. Anticipatory self-defence (Iraq 2003)

Anticipatory self-defence cannot be judicial act. War as an act of judgment and JWT within
the development of Christian thought stress the importance of a rational proportion. Making
the first move, however sure the attacker is that the other party will be attacking, can be seen
as an act of aggression, not justice.

2. Military mobilisation before an attack (1914)

Those with the authority to judge should use their authority to establish justice. In a just war,
the means necessary for establishing justice – be that mobilisation or deception can be
justified on a judicial level.

Mobilisation doesn’t always lead to war – Cold War and MAD

3. Writing of war plans in advance of any conflict (US military had a number of plans
“ready to go” in 2003)

Often times acts of judgments for intervention purposes take time to realise. If the US
military is sure of the emergence of an unlawful and unjust community somewhere in the
world, then it ought to prepare a plan for those with the authority to judge to implement. This
is completely judicially justified.

4. An attack to right a non-military wrong, such as:

a. Economic strangulation

Intent is the key to the judicial aspect of intervention. If economic strangulation is done
purposefully by a leader towards his/her people (Stalin and the Ukrainians in 1932 = 5
million dead) then intervention to protect the innocent should be a judicial act.

b. Wrong in preparation
c. Mere threat of wrong

The future is not as clearly available to us as the past is. While an act of judgment can support
preparation and planning in such cases, an attack without a definite cause is neither
proportional nor moral. Proportion is key here.

5. Espionage where there is no war:

a. Which relies on encouraging betrayal by foreign nationals of their country’s
secrets
b. Based on satellite observation

There is a clear difference between observation and action. When there is no just cause of
war, an act of judgment may be to investigate and find out about the potential causes of a
war. Where simple satellite observation may be proportional to the lack of a serious offence,
encouraging betrayal is by itself harmful and disproportionate to the lack of the offence.

6. Penal or punitive war, for example that of Israel against Hezbollah in southern
Lebanon. Should such a war be:
a. Limited to strikes against Hezbollah fighters and rocket launch sites

The will to discriminate is the will to do justice. Limited number of targeted strikes clearly
demonstrate that Israel’s true intention is self-defence against the Hezbollah fighters, while
leaving the innocent citizens of Lebanon alive.

b. Strikes against infrastructure targets (road bridges) to prevent the movement of

rockets

Innocent people passing or driving on these roads are targeted too. Without the discrimination
point such conduct is absolutely justified, therefore the only judicial possibility is informing
the state of the military plans for air attacks. These need not be too specific so that they do
not hurt the conduct of war. Something along the lines of clearing out all the roads for a
certain amount of time would ensure that no innocent lives are taken.

c. Based on Israel’s ned for safety, i.e. seizure of a buffer zone in southern
Lebanon

Such war would be reparative and punitive. There is no clear case for self-defence. A threat
of an attack does not justify military actions on the same judicial level as a real attack does.

7. A punitive war against a society:

a. Which practices human sacrifice

The philosophical issue underlying this problem is the question of whether human sacrifice
should be tolerated on the basis of cultural relativism or fought against due to absolute values
of justice. While in some cultures oppression of certain groups may be acceptable, and the
west could be often blamed for not engaging in equal discourse with these ideas, the matter of
human sacrifice should not be ascribed to the same category. Having said that, a war may not
be the best way to deal with such issues. A true liberal intervention would try and educate the
people rather than wage a war against them. Judicially, war has to be the absolute last resort.

b. Ruled by a ruthless dictator

Christianity states that an individual shall not resist evil or retaliate when attacked. Yet, the
bible does not prescribe actions when an individual sees someone else getting hurt. There
should be judicial acts against ruthless dictatorships; nevertheless, the difficulty of
discrimination when fighting such could be central to the debate around justice.