CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

circumstances, can causes be simply addressed; rather social processes must be adjusted
which may require long-term engagement.
A further consequence of the growing prominence of non-state and para-state actors is
that the West will find itself increasingly engaged with entities which are neither bound
by international law nor so susceptible to the motivations (examined in Chapter 2) for
conforming to ethical norms. Some but not all of the motivations to self-restraint, on
either cause or conduct, will apply.
From the perspective of this thesis, if Western states are obliged to engage in conflict
with non-state actors there may be the need to violate the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of those states from within whose borders, by consent or not, those actors
operate. The blurring of distinctions between combatant and non-combatant will,
similarly, impact on issues of jus in bello, whilst the lack of distinction between acts of
war and acts of crime will complicate attempts to act within the established legal
framework; what set of rules applies in complex conflict situations, the law of armed
conflict, the domestic law of the state (possibly failed) in whose territory operations are
occurring, or that of the intervening country? Inter-state wars have a clearly defined
beginning – usually a declaration of war, or the violation of a border – and end – an
armistice and peace treaty. This gives them a legal identity and defines the limits of
applicability of the laws of war and of peace. New wars are much less amenable of
such distinction, resulting in legal ambiguity. Such legal ambiguity may make moral
understanding all the more important. The concept of war and peace as part of an ill-
defined continuum of social interaction, alluded to above, would also undermine the
case for separate laws for war and for peace. As has become increasingly apparent for
US and British forces in Iraq, rules of engagement for ‘peace’ and for ‘war’ make for a
highly complex and difficult situation when the nature of conflict ebbs and flows.
Again, this heightens the requirement for a deep-seated moral understanding (thus
allowing first-principles judgements to be made) underpinning military conduct and
action. Furthermore, it is an inevitable feature of new wars, given the multiplicity of
protagonists and interests at play, that they are only truly over when the overwhelming
majority of people behave as if they were. 31 The defining power thus rests with a
171