War Violates International Law
Is the approval of other nations really needed for a moral war?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It's not unusual for those who want to stop a war from happening or to stop a war which has already begun to appeal to a "higher authority," namely international law. According to this argument, the actions of states with respect to each other cannot be arbitrary; instead, they must conform to more impersonal standards of the international community.
In essence, states must be restricted in their actions in a manner similar to how individual people are restricted in their actions within a society. When one person wrongs another, that individual is often not justified in personally retaliating in order to achieve "justice." Instead, public institutions like the police and the courts take over to ensure that justice is done.
Similarly, when one state wrongs another, it is not justified for the aggrieved government to resort to violence. Instead, international institutions like the international courts should be brought to bear. On those rare occasions when war might indeed be justified and is authorized by a body like the United Nations Security Council, that authorization should only occur according to specific standards outlined in international treaties.
Moreover, the war must be carried out according to international standards of military conduct. This argument is very much a direct outgrowth of traditional Just War theories which stipulate as a criterion of any just and moral war that it be authorized by the proper authorities (in this case, some international body).
Whenever a state fails get such authorization and sanction, the war being pursued is regarded as necessarily unjust - no matter what the circumstances, reasons, or consequences. Because the consequences and circumstances are irrelevant, this is a deontological rather than a teleological objection to war.
One particular problem with this position is that it isn't a very moral position to object to war waged without the benefit of international support. Why? Because there isn't anything particularly moral about an international body either sanctioning or objecting to a war. International bodies have no firmer lock on what qualifies as a just war than the deliberating bodies of individual nations.
If we allow that a war may be just, then it is very easy to imagine a particular war which would be moral to pursue, but which international bodies condemn for unrelated reasons. After all, those international bodies are made up from representatives from different states, all of which have their own national interests. A majority of those states could readily reject a war which would cause them economic problems or even sanction a war which serves their economic needs.
It really isn't credible that a confluence of interests from a various nations would be able to transform an immoral war into a moral one, or a moral war into an immoral one. As a consequence, the morality of a war simply cannot be judged on how many different nations support it or whether any international bodies sanction it.
At best, reliance upon the support and sanction of international bodies serves as a pragmatic limit on warfare. Submitting a case for war which a nation wants to pursue will delay any final decision. During that delay, it might be revealed that the case for war is weaker or stronger than originally though - in either situation, we may be better off. At the same time, however, the delay might also exacerbate moral injustices which are the reason for war in the first place.
For example, if the war is designed to liberate an oppressed people being slaughtered, then any delay will mean only further suffering and death of innocents - is the pragmatic delay for international deliberation really justified, or is it rather itself a moral injustice? The delaying measures of international deliberation are not an inherent good: they might serve the cause of justice, but they might also thwart it.
A more serious pragmatic reason to seek international approval is simply to preserve the good will of other nations - going it alone with something as serious as a war can generate a lot of resentment and anger which might be avoided if there is wider consensus exists. Going it alone also costs more, both monetarily and in lives lost. However, it must not be forgotten that this requires a nation to risk sacrificing a possible moral value for the sake of preserving, selfishly, the approval of the international community or reducing economic expenditures.
The only clear question of justice which seems to be at stake is the willingness of a nation to abide by the international treaties it has signed. If a nation has agreed to refrain from any wars absent certain conditions and/or to submit grievances to an international body and abide by that body's decisions, then if that nation violates those treaties by pursuing war anyway it has violated at least some ethical standards, however moral and justified that war is otherwise.
In such circumstances, the general ethical standard of that country may be called into question, and this may be a good reason to take a much closer look at the justifications used for the war. It is not, however, a reason to reject the war out of hand or condemn it as immoral without much closer inspection.
-->
