Just War Tradition as Compared to Realism

Introduction

This paper outlines at an extremely high level the Just War Theory and the rival realist theory. Both theories broadly describe the conduct of warfare but differ in their details as well as their aims. These differences are enumerated, and finally a cursory analysis of both is presented.

Just War Tradition

The Just War Theory is fundamentally a list of rules for restraining war - it is a set of criteria that must be satisfied in order for a war to be considered "just." It is founded on the belief that war can be a moral undertaking. JWT is thus a framework or guide for when to resort to force and how use that force. The Just War Tradition is the doctrine tracing the evolution of JWT by Christian thinkers.

The criteria in the JWT are divided into three stages: before (jus ad bellum), during (jus in bello), and after (jus post bellum). Jus ad bellum are the criteria for when a nation-state should resort to war or use military force in general. These criteria include that the leader declaring war have legitimate authority, that is to be waged for just causes and good intentions, and (maybe) that there is a high probability of success. Once war has broken out, conduct should be governed by jus in bello criteria: there should be discrimination between military and civilian targets (principle of non-combatant immunity), attacks should be performed only out of military necessity, and that force be limited by some doctrine of proportionality. Just post bellum is apparently a recent addition to JWT, and it concerns justice once the guns have fallen silent. There doesn't seem to be a short and stable list of criteria. This will be addressed in the conclusion.

Realism

This presentation of realism follows Frowe Ch 5. The core idea of realism is embodied by Cicero's phrase "laws are silent in times of war" (silent enim leges inter arma). This means that war lies outside of both moral and legal boundaries, so the only proper constraints on warfare are that actions should advance national interests.

Realism can be divided into two camps: prescriptive realism and descriptive realism. The former claims that war should not be regulated, the latter that war cannot be regulated. Frowe criticizes descriptive realism by noting that individual combatants do follow strict moral codes - they fight honorably. Prescriptive realism falls short because both sides of a war share common interests in protecting their citizens, their infrastructure, and their heritage, or so Frowe claims.

Comparison

JWT and realism have distinct aims: JWT seeks to reduce the frequency and severity of warfare, whereas realism focuses attention on the successful completion of warfare, with the possible consequence that wars would be shorter in duration but more brutal.

JWT and realism, at this level of abstraction, both accept the reality of violence and that, under certain circumstances, its usage is permissible. Also, both seem isolated from the "domestic analogy" - individual self-defense and national self-defense are treated as independent issues, which they have been historically for most nations. So, on the issues of violence, admissibility of violence, and the "domestic analogy" they are similar.

Neither theory directly address the relation between warfare and the military virtue of courage alluded to by Hegel (Holmes, pp. 286-287). JWT would seem to be more compatible as both justice and courage are moral virtues.

While both theories address conduct during war, neither address the conditions under which war should be ended. What counts as peace, and whether the conditions for peace should set at the beginning or near the end of a war, is left unspecified.

Frowe Ch 5 doesn't mention whether realism has its own jus ad bellum - the inapplicability of rules during warfare does not imply that rules cannot function before a war begins. If there are realist rules governing the initiation of conflict, they would certainly include likelihood of success as well as something to the effect that the war must be in the nation's self-interest. Other than this, we would expect both JWT and realism to have similar criteria for initiating warfare.

Frowe also doesn't mention whether there is a realist jus post bellum.

The primary difference between JWT and realism is in the conduct of war, the jus in bello. JWT posits that rules are needed to restrain the scope of warfare - protect non-combatants, force should be applied according to some scale of proportional response, and actions must serve some military necessity. With realism, the gloves are off - rules are legitimate to the extent that they further successful completion of the war.

Analysis and Conclusions

At this level of abstraction, both JWT and realism come off as "straw man" theories, particularly realism. This is understandable given the source material used. The details of JWT will certainly be fleshed-out, and it would be interesting to see a final form of the doctrine of proportionality. Something sorely missing in JWT at this level is the relation of national interest to the initiation and pursuance of war. Also missing is the targeting of military actions - it is just assumed that that military actions should be aimed at the enemy.

It is also curious that jus post bellum - justice following the conclusion of war - is seen as an afterthought. Even a cursory study of history shows that wars recur frequently, and the reason they repeat is either laid-out in print, such as in Mein Kampf, or can be directly experienced when travelling, like when visiting south of the Mason-Dixon Line. As such, any theory that attempts to limit the scope and severity of warfare cannot afford to ignore jus post bellum.

References

Frowe, H. (2015). The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. Routledge.

Holmes, A. F. (2005). War and Christian Ethics. 2nd Edition. Baker Academic.