Aggression and the symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Kalmanovitz
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Hard Choice ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Causes Of War ◽  
Widespread View

Recent scholarship in just war theory has challenged the principle of symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This revisionist work, which is increasingly dominating the field of contemporary war ethics, rejects the idea that the rules of conduct of war (jus in bello) should be agnostic about the justice of the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum). Just wars are perceived to be inherently at odds with the principle of symmetrical application of IHL, which appears to create a hard choice between justice and legality. I show that this challenge to IHL is misplaced. It derives from a widespread view among just war theorists according to which only one side in a just war can be justified in using force. By looking closely at the nature of adjudication of just causes of war, I show that there can be cases of war in which both sides are justified in using force, and cases in which, though not objectively justified, both sides may be excused for fighting. On the basis of this understanding of jus ad bellum, I argue that the principle of symmetrical application of IHL in fact best reflects the uncertainty and complexity that should characterize the practical doctrine of jus ad bellum.

scholarly journals Chinese perspectives on the ad bellum/in bello relationship and a cultural critique of the ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Zhuo Liang
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
World Order ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Cultural Critique ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Holistic Understanding ◽  
The World

Abstract The intriguing relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello has provoked perennial academic debates. This article examines this issue from Chinese perspectives and offers a cultural critique of the well-entrenched norm of the ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law. Based on its distinctive traditional perception of the world order and the meaning of war, China embraces a holistic understanding of the ad bellum/in bello relationship. This relationship is construed as essentially harmonized. The cardinal moral principle underpinning it is that a just war should be conducted in a just way. The ad bellum/in bello separation in international humanitarian law has a Western origin, and the rationale behind it intimates Western sensitivity to the European just war tradition in which jus in bello was parasitic on jus ad bellum. It is assumed that jus ad bellum and jus in bello are irreconcilably in conflict once they come into contact with one another. This assumption is followed by a widely-held belief that any attempt to reconnect the two concepts would bring nothing but the subordination of jus in bello to jus ad bellum as experienced in European just war and, consequently, the collapse of the former. Chinese perspectives nevertheless evidence that this conventional line of thinking, hampering scholars from thinking beyond the sealed ad bellum/in bello separation, is not sound. A proposal for a more constructive solution should be taken into consideration.

scholarly journals Fiqh al-Jihād in Modern Warfare: Analyzing Prospects and Challenges with Reference to International Humanitarian Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 241
Author(s):  
Fajri Matahati Muhammadin ◽  
Thara Kunarti Wahab
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Literature Research ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Modern Warfare ◽  
The Way

In discussing the compatibility of the Islamic concept of jihād and international law, most researches focus on the jus ad bellum (justifications of war) of fiqh al jihād and less on the jus in bello (lawful conducts of war). This article observes the relation between fiqh al-jihād and modern international humanitarian law, and sets out both the prospects and challenges of such a concept in modern times. It is argued that some challenges are due to the lack of emphasis on the principles of fiqh al-jihād that are shared with modern International Humanitarian Law, or the existence of differing opinions between Islamic scholars. Using a literature research, this article finds that the way to address this is to make a unified code of fiqh al-jihād, involving scholars from all schools of thoughts, to agree on a common set of rules.

The Relationship between Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Okimoto Keichiro
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses the relationship between jus ad bellum (international law regulating the resort to force) and jus in bello (law of armed conflict). It examines state practice, international decisions, and expert opinions to determine how the relationship has been addressed in practice. The chapter considers the question of whether jus in bello applies equally to the unlawful and lawful parties to an armed conflict before turning to the legal implications of the cumulative requirements of the law of self-defence and international humanitarian law (IHL) imposed on a use of force in self-defence. Finally, it considers the legal implications of the concurrent application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and IHL with respect to use authorized under Chapter VII.

Should International Law Ensure the Moral Acceptability of War?

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
JANINA DILL
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Moral Standard ◽  
Human Rights Law

AbstractJeff McMahan's challenge to conventional just-war theory is an attempt to apply to the use of force between states a moral standard whose pertinence to international relations (IR) is decreasingly contestable and the regulation of which international law (IL) is, therefore, under pressure to afford: the preservation of individual rights. This compelling endeavour is at an impasse given the admission of many ethicists that it is currently impossible for international humanitarian law (IHL) to regulate killing in war in accordance with individuals’ liability. IHL's failure to consistently protect individual rights, specifically its shortfall compared to human rights law, has raised questions about IHL's adequacy also among international lawyers. This paper identifies the features of war that ground the inability of IL to regulate it to a level of moral acceptability and characterizes the quintessential war as presenting what I call an ‘epistemically cloaked forced choice’ regarding the preservation of individual rights. Commitment to the above moral standard, then, means that IL should not prejudge the outcome of wars and must, somewhat paradoxically, diverge from morality when making prescriptions about the conduct of hostilities. In showing that many confrontations between states inevitably take the form of such epistemically cloaked forced choices, the paper contests the argument by revisionist just-war theorists like McMahan that the failure of IL to track morality in war is merely a function of contingent institutional desiderata. IHL, with its moral limitations, has a continuing role to play in IR.

scholarly journals Το ζήτημα του πολέμου στο φιλοσοφικό στοχασμό και στην ιστορική πραγματικότητα

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ιωάννης Σταμούλος
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

Το διδακτορικό αρθρώνεται σε τρία μέρη. Στο πρώτο, αναλύσαμε την έννοια του πολέμου ως προς τον ορισμό, τις μορφές, και τα αίτια. Στο δεύτερο μέρος της διατριβής, καταγράψαμε τις απόψεις ειδημόνων και φιλοσόφων σχετικά με τον πόλεμο. Επικεντρωθήκαμε ιδιαίτερα στις αντιλήψεις τους που συνέβαλαν εξελικτικά στη διαμόρφωση της Θεωρίας περί Δικαίου Πολέμου (Just War Theory), η οποία περιλαμβάνει τα κριτήρια που καθιστούν έναν πόλεμο δίκαιο (Jus ad Bellum), κι εκείνα που αφορούν στη δεοντολογική διεξαγωγή του (Jus in Bello). Στο τρίτο μέρος, αναλύσαμε και συγκρίναμε τέσσερις διαφορετικές εποχές, κι από τη μεταξύ τους σύγκριση επιχειρήσαμε μ’ ένα ιστορικό-φιλοσοφικό πρίσμα να καταλήξουμε σε μια θέση, η οποία εκτιμάται ότι, κατά το μάλλον ή ήττον, θα έχει βάση, επειδή επιβεβαιώνεται διαχρονικά και διατοπικά. Προσπαθήσαμε να εντοπίσουμε τις σταθερές που διέπουν την ανθρώπινη δράση, ώστε να διαβλέψουμε την εξέλιξη των γεγονότων ή, τουλάχιστον, να έχουμε ένα μέτρο αξιολόγησης του παρόντος. Εργαλείο της έρευνας έγινε ο φιλοσοφικός λόγος, και αποσκοπούμε στην αναβίωση των κλασικών φιλοσοφικών κειμένων, για να αντλήσουμε από την πλούσια φιλοσοφική παρακαταθήκη του παρελθόντος σκέψεις που θα μας επιτρέψουν να κατανοήσουμε και να ερμηνεύσουμε τα ανθρώπινα δρώμενα διαχρονικά. Στο διδακτορικό προστίθεται ένα παράρτημα με πολεμικές μαρτυρίες, από τις οποίες επιχειρήσαμε να αναδείξουμε την ανθρώπινη ψυχοσύνθεση και συμπεριφορά στο πεδίο της μάχης. Το δεύτερο παράρτημα περιελάμβανε τις απόψεις για τον πόλεμο προσώπων από το χώρο της τέχνης, τα οποία με τις ευαισθησίες τους δίνουν έναν ιδιαίτερο τόνο στο κείμενο.

scholarly journals The Deontological and Consequentialist Principles of Jihad and the Just War Theory in Indonesian Context: A Critical Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Najamudin Najamudin
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

Tradisi perang berbasis keadilan dapat ditemukan dalam sejarah pemikiran politik Islam pada masa awal khalifah Islam. Dalam kajian ini, penulis menggunakan dua pisau analisis yaitu interpretasi tekstual terhadap Alquran dan Hadis, dan interpretasi sejarah perang suci dalam tradisi Islam. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menggali prinsip-prinsip dasar jihad, dan membandingkannya dengan teori perang berbasis keadilan untuk menemukan sisi persamaan dan perbedaanya, serta membangun argumentasi apakah jihad bisa dikategorikan sebagai bentuk perang yang memenuhi rasa keadilan masyarakat yang tertindas. Studi kasus dalam kajian ini adalah konsepsi jihad Imam Samudra dalam buku kontroversialnya “Aku Melawan Teroris”. Dengan menggunakan analisa Jus Ad Bellum dan Jus In Bello, ditemukan bahwa apabila jihad dipandang sebagai sesuatu yang sakral dan suci, maka kesucian jihad tidak bisa dikotori dengan tindakan terorisme. Dalam perspektif teologi dan hukum Islam, penelitian ini membuktikan penyalahgunaan ayat-ayat jihad oleh Imam Samudra untuk menjastifikasi tindakan terorisme yang dilakukannya di Bali.

scholarly journals The Just War Theory and Human Rights Violations: What Does International Law Tell?

2019 ◽  
Vol IV (I) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Asghar Ali ◽  
Nazim Rahim ◽  
Syed Mussawar Hussain Bukhari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

War and Peace are the two important topics of international law. Both the terms, despite polar apart in their nature are the subject matter of international law. As war is inevitable and cannot be reduced to zero; hence, international law tries to lay rules for the justification of war and its conduct. However, a just war becomes unjust when it causes disproportional civilian casualties. Humans become the target of war, whether just or unjust. On one hand, the UN Charter gives equal rights to all the humans without any discrimination and on the other hand, it considers the declaration of a just war as a prerogative of the UN Security Council only. However, states take unilateral actions and violate both the principle of proportionality and fundamental human rights. This analytical study discusses the Just War Theory and its impacts on fundamental human rights, in light of the international humanitarian law

scholarly journals Just war theory in Njegos’s works

2021 ◽  
pp. 361-375
Author(s):  
Dragan Stanar
Keyword(s):  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Just War ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Context Specific

Modern just war theory represents more of a tradition of thoughts on ethical issues of war than a theory per se. However, philosophical attitudes on war coming from authors from non-western cultures, including Serbian culture, are often left outside of this tradition. Author aims to demonstrate that there are clear ideas on ethical attributes of war and warring in Njegos?s work. By analyzing Njegos?s views expressed in his most significant works, through the prism of criteria of the classical elements of the modern just war theory (Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello), author demonstrates the existence of Serbian tradition of thought on ethics of war and warring. In this way, modern just war theory is supplemented and enriched with the Serbian historical perspective on justness of war and in war. Simultaneously, author highlights the challenges and perils of interpretation of philosophical ideas without considering the historical context, specific political-culturological circumstances and personality of the idea author. This is of a particular contemporary relevance, as misinterpretations of Njegos?s ideas on war and justice in war are often used to further fuel national antagonisms and destabilize the region.

scholarly journals War and post-truth: Moral equality of combatants and inculpable ignorance in just war theory

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 111-122
Author(s):  
Dragan Stanar
Keyword(s):  
Moral Status ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

This paper aims to explain the effect of the post-truth on revisionism in Just War Theory. Revisionism in JWT is based on the claim that Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello cannot be separated and that only combatants who fight on the just side are morally justified in killing. Presupposition of this argument is that combatants can and ought to know the moral status of their side. This paper will demonstrate that it is impossible to demand combatants to know whether their side is just by investigating the implications of post-truth in modern conflicts. By demonstrating the practical impossibility of combatants to know whether their side is just, author will show that the assumption of inculpable ignorance in war must remain the essence of JWT. Posttruth phenomenon only fortifies the necessity of separating Jus ad Bellum from Jus in Bello and upholding the principle of moral equality of combatants in contemporary wars.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document