Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[hap0206]

steph -- I thought the following was interesting:

First the liberal left [next post, the neocon]:
=========
Posted by Juan Kerr on May 19, 2005 09:26 AM:
Just war

A just war describes a war that satisfies a set of moral or legal rules. Though in origin a Christian doctrine, Francisco de Vitoria based his arguments on reason and so put the tradition on a more universal basis. [1]

The rules applied may be ethical, religious, or formal (such as international law). The rules classically cover the justification for the war (Jus ad Bellum) and the conduct of the participants in the war (Jus in Bello).

Just war theory has ancient roots. Cicero discussed this idea and its applications. Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas later codified a set of rules for a just war, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications.

In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force:

(Jus ad Bellum)

War can only be waged for a just cause, such as self-defense against an armed attack.

War can only be waged under legitimate authority. Usually the constitution and the laws of a nation state specify the institutions and personnel authorized to make war decisions. The U.N Charter authorizes the Security Council to make the international community's war decisions.
Citizens at their own will cannot attack another country without the permission of the legitimate authority. Conversely, in a democratic nation state, statesmen with legitimate authority will need to convince citizens that their course of action is legal and proper.

War can only be waged with the right intention. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not. Thus a war that would normally be just for all other reasons would be made unjust by a bad intention. Right intention requires that democratic statesmen accept the decision of their nations' courts and electorates on the legitimacy and the justice of their action.

War can only be waged with a reasonable chance of success. It is considered unjust to meaninglessly waste human life and economic resources if defeat is unavoidable.

War must be waged with proportionality in mind. The suffering which existed pre-war should not be overshadowed by the suffering the war may cause.[2]

War can only be waged as a last resort. War is not just until all realistic options which were likely to right the wrong have been pursued.

I'm not going to overstress Kellog-Briand or anything but the US of old did vote for that. In many ways I can admire Eisenhower's way, even as a liberal. But nothing justifies the use of war from these previously accepted tenets.
==============
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=126