10.04.2013 Views

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION<br />

5.1 Conclusion 1: Just War Doctrine has Continued Appeal to the Principal<br />

International Relations Schools of Thought<br />

The three principal schools of International Relations thought that can be seen to hold<br />

continuous sway over today’s Western policy makers are Realism, Liberalism and<br />

International Society. Just war doctrine has appeal to all three.<br />

Realism outwardly eschews moral argument from issues of international relations in<br />

general and war in particular; the concept of ‘national interest’ instead is supposed to<br />

provide the sole underpinning of policy guidance. However, the absolute realism<br />

illustrated in the Melian Dialogue is likely to build resentment and provoke challenge to<br />

a hegemon; a more measured approach to use of force – for which just war offers sound<br />

guidance – might be expected to preserve a hegemon’s authority, by minimising<br />

challenge. If realists seek, for reasons of cost and risk, to avoid war, then again just war<br />

can offer a useful guide to restricting its occurrence. Although realists argue that,<br />

whatever the arguments about when force might be used, once battle is joined there is<br />

no place for moral judgement (all that matters is winning), in fact the history of warfare<br />

argues otherwise; soldiers are repeatedly shown to be moral agents and instruments of<br />

compassion.<br />

As description, realism is disproved in fact. As prescription it fails to take into account<br />

the importance that must be attached – as proved empirically throughout history – to a<br />

state’s moral standing. Moreover, restraint in conduct and adherence to widely<br />

acknowledged rules can be seen as sensible insurance for a powerful country against the<br />

day when power has shifted. If nothing else the realist/moral-sceptic must recognise the<br />

prudential argument for restricting both the occasion of and conduct within war. Just<br />

war can offer the framework of guidance for this.<br />

Kant’s internationalisation of liberalism identifies the need for a supranational power to<br />

maintain order in the international system even though it is a ‘society’ into which states<br />

319

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!