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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

If the application of the UN Charter paradigm was to some degree held in abeyance by<br />

the realities of the Cold War, the removal of this obstacle to its effective implementation<br />

coincided with a changing value-set that offered it greater challenge. The Charter was<br />

predicated on a value-set that placed order – as the sine qua non of international peace<br />

and security – above all else. At the end of the Twentieth Century this was no longer<br />

held valid and a revised value-set was emerging that placed individual rights and justice<br />

in prime position. Against this background the principle of non-intervention was<br />

untenable.<br />

5.4 Conclusion 4: There Remains a Requirement to Justify Use of Force and to<br />

Ensure Just Conduct; Failure of the Legal Paradigm Requires a Reversion to First<br />

Principles Moral Justification<br />

Despite the failure of the legal paradigm, there remains a requirement that states justify<br />

their resort to force and constrain their conduct within armed conflict. The requirement<br />

can be analysed at three levels: international, national and individual. However, in<br />

reality these levels interact and overlap.<br />

At the international level jus ad bellum and jus in bello are required as underpinnings of<br />

a state’s moral standing in the world, which is a determinant of its leadership and<br />

influence, encapsulated in the concept of ‘soft power’. Even the most powerful state<br />

has been shown to require – politically and practically – the support of allies, which is<br />

undermined if the occasion or conduct of its uses of force are perceived to be wrong. A<br />

hegemon perceived as a bully risk challenge that a respected hegemon avoids.<br />

In democracies, especially, improper use of force threatens electoral support,<br />

undermines the standing of the ruling party and its leaders and can even threaten the<br />

standing of the institutions of the state, including the armed forces. Engagement in<br />

conflicts not widely perceived as just – or a reputation tarnished by improper conduct –<br />

will impact on armed forces’ ability to recruit and retain soldiers. Lack of popular<br />

support for a conflict erodes national will and the readiness to accept the inevitable<br />

casualty-toll.<br />

322

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!