Jus Ad Bellum

Jus Post Bellum

Justice After the War

Jus Ad Bellum

Jus In Bello

McMahan

Institutional Excuse

Justice in Going To War

Justice While In War

Proportionality in War

The Institutional Excuse Isn't Good Enough

Unjust Combatants Can't be Justified by

• Harm caused is death
• Those harmed are innocent

• Self Defense
• Institutional Duties
• Obedience to Proportionality

Limit your actions in war, so that their harm is outweighed by the good in which they'll result

• But, an unjust victory is not good!

It's ok for unjust combatants to fight for their own defense.

• El Cachafaz
• The Bank Robber

But soldiers may not have a choice whether to fight.

Morally OK to participate in certain social institutions that may sometimes require you to do wrong.

• police force
• democracy
• judiciary
• university

• military

Death penalty?

Drug crime?

1. Proportionality

2. Discrimination

3. Rehabilitation

1. Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello are independent

2. Unjust combatants act morally permissibly as long as they follow Jus in Bello

3. Combatants are permissible targets, whereas noncombatants are not.

1. Discrimination

• Intentions

2. Proportionality

3. No means mala in se

• bad in and of themselves

4. Obey Weapons Bans

5. No Reprisals

Just combatants killing 20 unjust combatants to save a comrade

Unjust combatants killing 20 just combatants to save a comrade

1. Just Cause

• Defense
• Pre-emptive
• Preventative
• Bush Doctrine

2. Right Intention

3. Proper Authority

So, not permissible to participate in an unjust war

4. Last Resort

5. Probable Success

6. Proportionality

Legitimate Authority

Discrimination

Jus Ad Bellum

Terrorism

Jus In Bello

Instance of targetting innocents,or collateral damage?

Just Cause

States:

• Defend Self or Other from Aggression

Non-States:

• Right to Self-Determination/Autonomy

By Valls' definition, terrorists can and do discriminate combatants/innocents.

Is combatant status a matter of degree?

Just the Legal Authority?

Or, plausible claim to represent the interests of the people.

• Recognized by the people as such

• Proportionality
• No Means mala in se
• No Reprisals
• Obey Weapons Bans

Violence by non-state actors?

Violence against Innocents?

Violence we just don't like?

Violence designed to produce fear?

• Just Cause
• Legitimate Authority
• Right Intention
• Last Resort
• Probability of Success
• Proportionality

politicians soldiers supporters taxpayers dissenters

Valls:

"violence against persons or property by non-state actors for political purposes"

Examples?

Jus in bello

New Criteria

Khatchadourian

It's only permissibly to kill when:

Jus ad bellum

Proportionality

Probability of Success

Proportionality

Discrimination

Does publicizing a cause justify killing innocents?

Destroying Property?

A. Defending the life of yourself or others

OR

B.

1.Killing is the lesser of two evils

AND

2. Killing doesn't violate anyone's moral rights

• Terrorism rarely accomplishes its goals, and the goals rarely justify the suffering caused by terrorism

• Often sets back a just cause
• Palestinian Liberation

politicians soldiers supporters taxpayers dissenters

tourists?

Dershowitz on Torture

Balancing Rights and Security

Legalized Torture

Four Alternatives

Ticking Time Bomb

1. Prohibit Torture Entirely

• Ticking Time Bomb

2. Torture "outside the law"

3. Hypocritical Torture

• Anti-democratic
• Easy to abuse

4. Legalized Torture

• Possible rights violations
• Possible deaths averted

• 1. Absolutely Prohibit Torture

• 2. Embrace torture "outside the law"

• 3. Condemn torture but do it anyway

• 4. Legalize Torture

Torture Warrants

We already condone threats of imprisonment

Democratic Oversight

Trade-off:

• Human Rights

• Protection of Innocent Life

Legalized Torture-- Luban

Social Psychology:

Stanford Prison Experiment

Moral Acceptability judged in terms of what is "normal"

Bureaucratic Structure:

Responsibility trickles down, credit trickles up.

1. Decision Maker

2. Torturer