Today we participated in a presentation and discussion by Dr. Brian Orend. Dr. Orend is the Director of International Studies, and a Professor of Philosophy, at the University of Waterloo in Canada. He is perhaps best-known for his work on “justice after war”: the ethics of post-war reconstruction.
We were given chapters from his book “The Morality of War” to read prior to the presentation, these discussed the Just War Theory; before, during and after conflict.
What impressed me during the presentation was the clarification of the three extremes of war theory, realism, pacifism and of course, just war. I always thought that the United States was more towards the realism side of the spectrum, but when he made the statement that the realist “races to the bottom” and that nothing would be left off of the table.
His description of pacifist theory as “disguised surrender” doesn’t seem to be any effective theory as every country that could justify their reason, would want to roll right over you.
Just war theory with his identified six principles, or “rules” lay out the criteria that explain what “should be done” before we commit to war.
- Just cause
- Right intentions
- Publicly declared
- Last resort
- Probability of success
- Proportionality
These outlined principles definitely help the justification of following the orders of my superiors. If I believe, and I understand that there is a lot of belief necessary for Just War Theory to be effective, that the President is sending me and my Soldiers into harms way, that these decisions are made with these principles well defined.
It was mentioned in the book and during the presentation, the justification of anticipatory attack used when justified. He was asked if he saw any problem with any state attempting to use these principles and bend them to justify their use of force at any time.
He clarified, that of course countries would attempt to stretch these principles in an attempt to sway world opinion to their reason to attack. He then defended the fact that world opinion or some entity, would review the evidence as to why the country attacked and if it was truly “just”. My only problem with this assertion is, who is this entity that reviews the evidence and then makes judgment. Then, who enforces these finding? The UN? Are they an effective entity?
I would like to have heard more on the jus post bello or after major combat operations. He discussed the choice of using retribution versus rehabilitation. That historically rehabilitation has worked better as in post World War II in Japan and West Germany, than the retribution after World War I.
I enjoyed his presentation and book. These concepts and principles solidify and make apparent my ethical standing as it concerns with war. I understand now why it is that I can sleep at night or look in the mirror. Nothing read or briefed was new or mind blowing but it was definitely information that clarified my feelings and beliefs.
MAJ Wood SG4A
3 Comments on "Dr. Orend Just War Theory Ethics Blog"
Dr. Orend was a great speaker to have come talk to the CGSC students, I hope future classes are given the opportunity. As for his knowledge of the subject, it was exceptional, but his speaking style was especially understandable and he focussed on those points which were most important for field grade officers in the US (and international) militaries.
I’d like to talk about one point that Dr. Orend made, he said that Jus in Bello requires that Jus ad Bello be met. That is to say that, if a nation does not have Jus ad Bello, no matter how ethical they are in prosecuting the war, they can never have Jus in Bello.
As a military officer, I see that this may cause some problems for those of us that want to see our actions as honorable. In the Iraq war, there has been some debate on whether the conditions for going to war were met and whether it was a just war. Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, it is irrefutable that the main premise for going to war was intelligence (later proven false) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
So, here is the concern that I see. If a nation state goes to war with what appears to be enough to substantiate Jus ad Bello, and the military of that nation conducts itself ethically in the prosecution of the war, then with the benefit of hindsight, the evidence for Jus ad Bello is proven incorrect. It seems inappropriate to “revoke” the status of Jus in Bello.
Maj David Castor, USAF
I agree with the comments that have been posted by MAJ Wood and clinksville above. Dr. Orend, in his book and during the presentation, gave a compelling argument in utilizing Just War theory as a way to ethically look at the use of war.
MAJ Woods, in his post, brought up a good point on questioning who the entity is that is responsible for “judging” whether a war is just or not. Based on reading his book, I think Dr. Orend believes the UN, and more specifically the UNSC, is the international entity that should make these judgments. This brings up a question, however, on whether or not the UNSC is the best or appropriate entity to make this judgment.
When it comes to conventional wars between two nation-states, the UNSC has done a good job in being a fair entity in judging whether or not war is just. This is evident in its actions during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. When it comes to nonconventional war, or conflict against non-state actors, however, the UNSC has less desirable track record. The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 and Khmer Rouge massacres in the 1970’s are evidence of this.
One of the possible reasons for this is due to how the UN is set up. UN membership is devised of nation-states, not non-state actors. As a result, non-state actors have no say or reason for compliance to what the UN dictates or says. Furthermore, non-state actors have the ability to intravenously influence several nation-states. This means they can have a larger voice against one nation-state, circumventing the idea that all nation-states in the UN have an equal voice no matter their size or wealth.
Another reason for the failure of the UNSC is the lack of compliance of nation-state members. Numerous nation-states, such as North Korea, and Iran, have failed to comply with UNSC resolutions and receive no significant repercussions that would otherwise deter their behavior. Additionally, the other nation-states, like the US, have ignored UNSC votes to engage conflict. This lack of compliance erodes the entity’s effectiveness and influence as a potential entity to be a judge for just wars.
While the UN has been effective in certain instances in being a good entity to judge just wars, it has lost this effectiveness. This is the result of an evolution in warfare, which increasingly involves non-state actors and transnational groups, as well as an erosion of legitimacy among nation-states. Unless the UN can compensate for non-state actors and regain its legitimacy among nation-states, it is time to look for a new global entity to judge whether or not war or conflict is just.
I agree with MAJ Wood’s comments. More discussion on jus post bello, or after major combat operations, would be interesting and insightful. It is very relevant to the environmental situation our units find themselves operating in during phases IV and V. Ethical theories applied to stability operations and the subsequent transfer to alliance or coalition led organizations would be worthwhile to study.
Dr. Orend’s explanation of the three moral traditions in just war theory (deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics) built upon and brought practical understanding to the ethical theories we studied during Ethics 100.
I found Dr. Orend to be very well versed in just war theory and he communicated his points in a logical and easily understood manner. His six principles of just war theory are legitimate and a good standard by which to judge ourselves as leaders in the profession of arms. These principles, in conjunction with the Army values and the Geneva Convention, will assist me in judging military operations and serve as a standard of justification for the actions of our whole-of-government efforts.
Dr. Orend’s book “The Morality of War,” and his brief are well worth the time and assisted in solidifying my personal view of just war ethics.