Jaw jaw on just war

[T_i_B]

Interesting article by the Bishop of Oxford about Christian "Just War" doctrine (used by the Church to oppose the war on Iraq) and how the US appears to be moving away from the rest of the world on this matter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1514165,00.html

A recent seminar in London drew together Christian just-war theorists from the United States and Britain to discuss the international scene in the light of Christian principles. It worked well because the participants shared a common intellectual framework and the view that, whatever moral judgments may be made about particular wars, the analysis provided by traditional just-war thinking was an indispensable intellectual tool.

Nevertheless, there were strong differences of opinion between the dominant US perspective and the dominant European one, nowhere more marked than in attitudes towards the United Nations.

The first criterion for a war to be regarded as morally justifiable is that it must be declared by a legitimate authority. For most of history, this has been the supreme sovereign. Until 1945, there was no higher sovereignty than the government of a nation state, though, since then, the UN has, in principle, offered such an authority. Article 51 reserves to states the right of self-defence, but wars of intervention must be authorised by the security council.

(snip)

The Christian just-war tradition, however misused, has much accumulated wisdom, not least in reminding us that relationships between states are just as much a matter of morality as relationships between individuals - and that strengthening the UN, and the role of international laws that reflect that moral dimension, is a continuing imperative.

[T_i_B]

1. Why the Iraq war was not a just war.

Article by the same author explaining why the Iraq war was wrong that explains the "Just War" doctrine very well.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,768874,00.html

The first criterion is that there must be lawful authority: and this, in fact, means authority at the highest possible level. The logic of this is that in disputes between lower authorities appeal can always be made to a higher one for a resolution without recourse to war.

Second, there must be just cause. When the UN inspectors were expelled from Iraq in 1998, it appeared that Resolution 687 relating to weapons dismantlement had been partly implemented. There was no indication of any weapons-usable nuclear materials remaining in Iraq. There was no evidence that Iraq was manufacturing or testing indigenous ballistic missiles. Most of the prime chemical weapons development and production complex had been dismantled.

Third, every effort must have been made to resolve the dispute first by peaceful means. This suggests a clear moral obligation to go on pressing for the re-admittance of UN Weapons Inspectors into Iraq. We should not yet give up on this. Even if Saddam Hussein's present initiative to discuss the issue further does not bear fruit, we should persevere.

Fourth, a judgment has to be made that the war will not unleash more evils than are already being endured. Here it is possible to paint an apocalyptic scenario, with the whole Middle East in flames, as King Adbullah of Jordan has recently stressed, despotic regimes in Islamic countries being toppled and Iraq dismembered and in a state of civil war.

[oscar111]

2. ..

....