Adherence To The Just War Doctrine example essay topic

Just War Doctrine and the Gulf Conflict In evaluating US involvement in the Iraq conflict in terms of the Just War Doctrine - jus ad bellum and jus in bello - it is my opinion that the US adhered to the Doctrine in its entirety. The US acted justly both in its entering into the Gulf conflict (jus ad bellum) and in its conduct while in the conflict (jus in bello). To support this opinion I will individually address the co parts that constitute the Just War Doctrine and show how US participation in the Iraq war abstained from violating the tenets of either co-part. Jus Ad Bellum Jus Ad Bellum, the justness of entering into conflict consists of six primary tenets: legitimate authority, just cause, proportionality, right intention, chance of success, and last resort. 1. Legitimate Authority - Only those of legitimate authority may justly lead its country into war.

This tenet disqualify revolutionaries, radicals and / or subversives who seek to justly initiate war. War is to be the decisions of the head of state and is to be subject to their guidance. 2. Just Cause - A just conflict may not be initiated void of just cause. This tenet disallows justifying war for the purpose of economic gain, land acquisition, or strategic position.

If war is to be justly initiated just cause, usually humanitarian, must first exist. 3. Right Intention - This relates to the tenet of just cause. Just cause must be followed by right intention. It would be unjust seek a goal devoid of the just cause. 4.

Proportionality - Also in relation to just cause is the tenet of proportionality. Proportionality must exist between the cause and the decision to go to war. For country (a) to initiate a total war with country (b) because of a minor violation that country (b) was responsible for would and unjust. There is not cause enough to warrant country (b) being subjected to a total war. 5. Chance of Success - War must be initiated with a chance of success.

It would be unjust to lead people into a war they have no chance of winning. It would more just to bow to superiority and fight another day than to commit to a policy of suicide. 6. Last Resort - This is probably the most important of the jus ad bellum tenets. War should be the last resort.

Every diplomatic effort should be made to achieve a just cause without conflict. Only after all non- options have been exhausted should war be committed to. As to the question of whether or not the US adhered to the tenet of ju sad bellum the reply is a resounding yes. The US, under legitimate authority undertook the just cause of alleviating the plight of a coalition partner. Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait was unjust, or at least in violation of the Just War Doctrine, and the US sought to reconcile matters. The goal, the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, was a just one and was pursued proportionally.

For nearly six months the US and other UN / coalition partners made every diplomatic effort to resolve the conflict peacefully. Secretary General of UN Security Council Junio Perez de Cuellar made several attempts to hash out a peaceful plan with Saddam Hussein directly and during this time the US abstained from any military action. In conjunction with efforts of Perez de Cuellar, US Secretary of State James Baker spent countless hours negotiating directly with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in an attempt to bring about a non-violent end to the crisis. When all efforts failed to bring an end to the conflict by peaceful means the UN Security Council drafted Resolution 678 which authorized 'all means necessary' to dislodge Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

In one last effort US President George Bush sent a direct communique'e to Saddam Hussein asking the Iraqi President to leave peacefully or face an international conflict. In the communique'e the President Bush wrote: Mr. President: We Stand at the brink of war between Iraq and the world. This is a war that began with your invasion of Kuwait; this is a war that can be ended only by Iraq's full and unconditional compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 678... The international community is united in its call for Iraq to leave all of Kuwait without condition and without further delay...

We prefer a peaceful outcome. However, anything less than full compliance... is unacceptable. Only after Saddam Hussein failed to comply with Resolution 678, the eighteenth resolution drawn in response to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, was the decision made to forcefully remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and launch Operation Desert Storm. Jus In Bello The second co-part of the two co-parts that constitute the Just War Doctrine is jus in bello or justices in war. Jus in bello mandates that the following tenets must be adhered to for justice in war to exist: proportionality, moral means, purposeful deprivation of life. 1.

Proportionality - This tenet of proportionality eliminates overkill as a just means in war. Allegorically speaking, this tenet says its unjust to use an H-bomb where a bayonet will suffice. 2. Moral Means - The moral means tenet of jus in bello bars the use of indiscriminate weapons and / or weapons that cause needless pain and suffering. Again, atomic weapons are an apt example; nuclear weapons would be considered unjust because they indiscriminate and capable of causing needless pain and suffering. 3.

No Deprivation of Life Without Cause - Under jus in bello it is unjust to kill when it can be avoided. Deprivation of life without purpose is immoral and contradictory to the Just War Doctrine. When analyzing the justness of US conduct in the Gulf Crisis, it is important to keep two points in mind: 1. The just cause was to remove Iraqiforces from Kuwait; anything more and the Doctrine might be violated. 2. UN Resolution 678 authorized the use of 'all means necessary' to dislodge Iraqiforces from Kuwait.

This quite literally opened the door to Doctrine violation. Any adherence to the Just War Doctrine would be by choice and not by fear of consequence. It was in fact the choice the US to adhere to the Just War Doctrine and their conduct in the conflict proves of this. The US goal was to remove Iraqi Forces from Kuwait and prevent the possibility of any immediate reoccupation.

This goal was pursued and achieved, and done so in the most just manner possible. Though the US possessed immense destructive capabilities they employed only that necessary to get the job done. The most effective aspect of the coalition forces was their air assault. The various jet-fueled fighters and bombers the US employed were more than capable of turning Iraq quite literally into a parking lot. They did not. Instead bombing occurred only where enemy forces or enemy armament was suspected to be stored.

Civilian areas were not fired upon unless a threat, such as an anti-aircraft gun, was placed in a civilian area, and in these instances pin-point missiles were used to eliminate the threat with as little destruction to the surrounding area as possible. This adheres to the moral means doctrine which finds indiscriminate weapons unjust. Though the USw as authorized to use any and all means they employed nothing more than what was necessary to complete the job adequately. As I stated above UN Resolution 678 left the door wide open to possible violations of International Law.

Despite this US went beyond the call of duty to assure that its role in the Gulf conflict was just. Risking their own well being, US pilots often gave.