Just War Principles and Economic Sanctions

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 99-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert C. Pierce ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Ethical Analysis ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Great Pain

Pierce challenges the argument that economic sanctions are always morally preferable to the use of military force. His analysis shows that economic sanctions also inflict great pain, suffering, and physical harm on the innocent population of noncombatants and that small-scale military operations are sometimes preferable. Lori Fisler Damrosch's framework for ethical analysis, Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, and the case of Haiti are used to support his argument.

scholarly journals The resort to military force in the COVID-19 health emergency: A justification

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (35) ◽  
pp. 549-569
Author(s):  
Zivorad Rasevic
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Survey Methodology ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Domestic Use ◽  
Military Support ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
Emergency Measures

The COVID-19 pandemic has been mobilizing the full capacities of societies worldwide to respond to unprecedented threats to national and human security. In many cases, emergency measures have involved military support to civil institutions, including law enforcement operations. This paper aims to understand the legality and legitimacy of these military operations better, using hermeneutic, comparative, and survey methodology. It is based on the assumptions that international human rights standards crucially determine moral requirements for domestic use of military force and that just war theory can be equally helpful in the decision-making on domestic military operations in such circumstances. This study assesses the justification of current military enforcement and recommends criteria for future emergencies.

The President’s Constitutional Authority to Use Limited Military Force

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip R. Trimble
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Presidential Power ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
United States Intervention

The United States intervention in Haiti concludes another chapter in the development of the constitutional common law of presidential power. The Haiti experience further confirms the constitutional authority of the President to deploy armed forces into hostile foreign environments, and to initiate the use of force without prior, specific congressional authorization. The facts of the situation limit the “precedent” to small-scale interventions where the risk of major military engagements, either initially or upon escalation, is negligible. The cases of largescale hostilities, like Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, are quite different in fact and perhaps also in law. But the Haiti “precedent,” coupled with the recent interventions in Grenada and Panama and innumerable examples earlier in history, strongly supports an unqualified presidential power to carry out small-scale military operations in support of foreign policy goals.

The Alternatives to War

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Pattison
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Action ◽  
Comprehensive Account ◽  
The Face ◽  
Normative Issues ◽  
Better Than

If states are not to go to war, what should they do instead? In The Alternatives to War: From Sanctions to Non-violence, James Pattison considers the case for the alternatives to military action to address mass atrocities and aggression. He covers the normative issues raised by measures ranging from comprehensive economic sanctions, diplomacy, and positive incentives, to criminal prosecutions, non-violent resistance, accepting refugees, and arming rebels. For instance, given the indiscriminateness of many sanctions regimes, are sanctions any better than war? Should states avoid ‘megaphone diplomacy’ and adopt more subtle measures? What, if anything, can non-violent methods such as civilian defence and civilian peacekeeping do in the face of a ruthless opponent? Is it a serious concern that positive incentives can appear to reward aggressors? Overall, Pattison provides a comprehensive account of the ethics of the alternatives to war. In doing so, he argues that the case for war is weaker and the case for many of the alternatives is stronger than commonly thought. The upshot is that, when reacting to mass atrocities and aggression, states are generally required to pursue the alternatives to war rather than military action. Pattison concludes that this has significant implications for pacifism, Just War Theory, and the responsibility to protect doctrine.

scholarly journals Scarred souls, weary warriors, and military intervention: the emergence of the subject in the just war writings of Jean Bethke Elshtain

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER LEE
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Just War ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Military Force ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Just War Tradition ◽  
A Site

AbstractOver the past three decades Jean Bethke Elshtain has used her critique and application of just war as a means of engaging with multiple overlapping aspects of identity. Though Elshtain ostensibly writes about war and the justice, or lack of justice, therein, she also uses just war a site of analysis within which different strands of subjectivity are investigated and articulated as part of her broader political theory. This article explores the proposition that Elshtain's most important contribution to the just war tradition is not be found in her provision of codes or her analysis of ad bellum or in bello criteria, conformity to which adjudges war or military intervention to be just or otherwise. Rather, that she enriches just war debate because of the unique and sometimes provocative perspective she brings as political theorist and International Relations scholar who adopts, adapts, and deploys familiar but, for some, uncomfortable discursive artefacts from the history of the Christian West: suffused with her own Christian faith and theology. In so doing she continually reminds us that human lives, with all their attendant political, social, and religious complexities, should be the focus when military force is used, or even proposed, for political ends.

scholarly journals Organizacyjne i personalne ramy „globalnej wojny z terroryzmem” w świetle orzecznictwa sądów amerykańskich

Poliarchia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 51-95
Author(s):  
Dariusz Stolicki
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Impact

The Organizational and Personal Framework of the “Global War on Terror” in the Light of the Decisions of the United States Courts The article analyses the law of military detention applicable to the ongoing conflict with Al‑Qaeda and associated forces, to the extent that that law emerges from the jurisprudence of U.S. federal courts, and particularly of the D.C. Circuit. It discusses four major issues: the types of organizations against which military force can be used in accordance with the Congressional authorization, the range of persons subject to military detention in connection with such use of force (in terms of both legal categories and factual predicates), the scope of the battlefield on which the use of force is authorized, and the extent to which American citizens or foreigners lawfully present in the U.S. territory enjoy special immunity from military detention. The article concludes that the impact of the D.C. Circuit decisions on those questions extends beyond the issue of military detention, and provides the general legal framework applicable to other military operations directed against terrorist organizations in the Middle East, such as target strikes or the campagin against the self‑styled Islamic State.

Threats and Coercive Diplomacy: An Ethical Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory M. Reichberg ◽  
Henrik Syse
Keyword(s):  
Speech Act ◽  
Just War ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Ethical Analysis ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Coercive Diplomacy ◽  
Actual Use ◽  
Special Category

AbstractThreats of armed force are frequently employed in international affairs, yet they have received little ethical scrutiny in their own right. This article addresses that deficit by examining how threats, taken as a speech act, require a moral assessment that is distinctive vis-à-vis the actual use of armed force. This is done first by classifying threats within the framework of speech act theory. Then, applying standard just war criteria, we analyze conditional threats of harm under Thomas Schelling's twofold distinction of compellence and deterrence. We aim to show how threats of armed attack, while subject to many of the same evaluative principles as the corresponding use of force, nevertheless have distinctive characteristics of their own. These are outlined under the headings of just cause, ad bellum proportionality, legitimate authority, and right intention. The overall aim is to explain how threats in the international sphere represent a special category that warrants a just war analysis.

Just war thinking in recent American religious debate over military force

2009 ◽  
pp. 76-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Turner Johnson ◽  
Richard Dannatt
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Military Force

A Peaceful, Silent, Deadly Remedy: The Ethics of Economic Sanctions

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 123-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joy Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
International Governance ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Deontological Ethics ◽  
Ethical Frameworks ◽  
Just War Doctrine ◽  
Political Intervention ◽  
Kantian Principle

Economic sanctions are emerging as one of the major tools of international governance in the post-Cold War era. Sanctions have long been seen as a form of political intervention that does not cause serious human damage, and therefore does not raise pressing ethical questions. However, the nature of sanctions is that they effectively target the most vulnerable and least political sectors of society, and for this reason they must be subject to ethical scrutiny.This essay looks at sanctions in the context of three ethical frameworks: just war doctrine, deontological ethics, and utilitarianism. It argues that sanctions are inconsistent with the principle of discrimination from just war doctrine; that sanctions reduce individuals to nothing more than means to an end by using the suffering of innocents as a means of persuasion, thereby violating the Kantian principle that human beings are “ends in themselves”; and that sanctions are unacceptable from a utilitarian perspective because their economic effectiveness necessarily entails considerable human damage, while their likelihood of achieving political objectives is low.

Converting treaties into tactics on military operations

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (895-896) ◽  
pp. 919-942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Carswell
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Operational Guidance ◽  
Direct Attack

AbstractDespite widespread State acceptance of the international law governing military use of force across the spectrum of operations, the humanitarian reality in today's armed conflicts and other situations of violence worldwide is troubling. The structure and incentives of armed forces dictate the need to more systematically integrate that law into operational practice. However, treaty and customary international law is not easily translated into coherent operational guidance and rules of engagement (RoE), a problem that is exacerbated by differences of language and perspective between the armed forces and neutral humanitarian actors with a stake in the law's implementation. The author examines the operative language of RoE with a view to facilitating the work of accurately integrating relevant law of armed conflict and human rights law norms. The analysis highlights three crucial debates surrounding the use of military force and their practical consequences for operations: the dividing line between the conduct of hostilities and law enforcement frameworks, the definition of membership in an organized armed group for the purpose of lethal targeting, and the debate surrounding civilian direct participation in hostilities and the consequent loss of protection against direct attack.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document