Link Of Interest: Is There Such A Thing As Just War?

Surely, there are just causes?

I recognize this article by George Weigel titled "Moral clarity in a time of war" may upset some, especially on the left and those who question the Bush administration, but I felt it a proper complement to the Margolis link below.

Here are a couple of lighter excerpts from the article I pulled out:

"In the classic just war tradition, “just cause” was understood as defense against aggression, the recovery of something wrongfully taken, or the punishment of evil. As the tradition has developed since World War II, the latter two notions have been largely displaced, and “defense against aggression” has become the primary, even sole, meaning of “just cause.” This theological evolution has parallels in international law: the “defense against aggression” concept of just cause shapes Articles 2 and 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. In light of twenty-first-century international security realities, it is imperative to reopen this discussion and to develop the concept of just cause."

Interesting passage. Rather than apply the law to those who break it why not change the law to fit the realities of contemporary times? It always struck me as incongruent to apply treaties such as the "Geneva Conventions" to actors (terrorists) who reject Western values and laws.

The U.S., some would interject, can't espouse "just causes" if its ideals have been compromised by an unpopular and alleged illegal war. What if the intentions of America in the post-war era were truly about stabilizing the world system, how did it go astray and awry in the court of international public opinion?

"Some will argue that this violates the principle of sovereignty and risks a global descent into chaos. To that, I would reply that the post-Westphalian notions of state equality and sovereign immunity assume at least a minimum of acquiescence to minimal international norms of order. Today’s rogue states cannot, on the basis of their behavior, be granted that assumption. Therefore, they have forfeited that immunity. The “regime factor” is determinative, in these extreme instances."

I have argued this point many times on this blog and allude to something similar above with applying the Geneva Conventions to terrorists.

"On the matter of just cause, the tradition also needs development in terms of its concept of the relevant actors in world politics. Since September 11, some analysts have objected to describing our response to the international terrorist networks as “war” because, they argue, al-Qaeda and similar networks are not states, and only states can, or should, wage “war,” properly understood. There is an important point at stake here, but the critics misapply it."

Or as Mr. Margolis argues, this is not a war against terrorism but a colonial one meant to control oil.

"That the UN Charter itself recognizes an inalienable national right to self-defense suggests that the Charter does not claim sole authority to legitimate the use of armed force for the Security Council; if you are under attack, according to the Charter, you don’t have to wait for the permission of China, France, Russia, or others of the veto-wielding powers to defend yourself. Moreover, the manifest inability of the UN to handle large-scale international security questions suggests that assigning a moral veto over U.S. military action on these fronts to the Security Council would be a mistake. Then there is the question of what we might call “the neighborhood” on the Security Council: What kind of moral logic is it to claim that the U.S. government must assuage the interests of the French foreign ministry and the strategic aims of the repressive Chinese government—both of which are in full play in the Security Council—in order to gain international moral authority for the war against terrorism and the defense of world order against outlaw states with weapons of mass destruction? A very peculiar moral logic, indeed, I should think."

The U.S. did what it had to do. After all, it was attacked. Perhaps the United States has begun the process of forcing a new Treaty of Westphalia for the 21st century.