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.

must again be found from first principles – that is from ethical consideration. The<br />

requirement for justification of resort to force, and then of just conduct in conflict has<br />

three dimensions: international, national/domestic-political, and individual. It will be<br />

shown that internationally the perception of legitimacy is a key underpinning of ‘soft<br />

power’; that nationally it can have a significant impact on popular support for the<br />

government and its war effort; and that for the individuals who must engage in conflict<br />

a firm conviction that both their cause and their conduct is just has an important role to<br />

play in protecting the moral component of fighting power. (British Military Doctrine 2<br />

defines Fighting Power in terms of three components: Physical, Conceptual and Moral.)<br />

2.2 Why a Return to Ethics: The Legalist Paradigm Challenged<br />

2.2.1 The Legalist Paradigm Examined.<br />

Before claiming its actual or imminent demise, some further examination of the legalist<br />

paradigm is required to explain what it is that the term is taken to mean. It was argued<br />

in Chapter 1 (see p54 et seq) that post-World War One a sea-change took place with the<br />

first real efforts to restrict the sovereign right of states to make war. What has become<br />

known as the ‘peace through law approach’ was a distinctive movement within the new<br />

academic discipline of International Relations, coming to prominence in the early years<br />

of that discipline, but it was not itself new. Rather, it could trace its roots, as was shown<br />

in Chapter One, to the thought of Kant, of Grotius, of Vattel, and even to the treaty-law<br />

of the Greek city-states. So E H Carr’s characterisation of the approach as an ‘infantile<br />

disease of the newborn science of international relations’ 3 is inaccurate. Nevertheless,<br />

there are characteristics to the approach post-World War One that distinguish it from<br />

this earlier intellectual tradition and, indeed, justify use of the term ‘sea-change.’<br />

Firstly, there was a marked increase in interest in the approach, which spread among,<br />

inter alia, ‘statesmen, intellectuals and common citizens….’ alike. 4 Secondly, pre-war<br />

the focus had always been on developing and perfecting the existing system of<br />

international legal limitation on the use of force. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and<br />

66

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!