Vanessa Van Dinh

Kurt Nutting

PHIL315-01

November 29, 2021

PHIL315 Final Writing Assignment

Throughout history and mankind, the use of force and war was not uncommon, where states battled with each other and the inevitable chaos ensured that one side or a set of nations claimed victory. However, the art of war and the use of force never describes or entails the effects after war, where the people who suffer the most from the effects of war are not the ones who decided to lay the first strike; in other words, the use of war comes with the unavoidable costs which affects everyone. And throughout each war, the reasons for war and how it should be conducted dictates whether that use of force in said war is morally justified or morally unjust. This moral framework comes from Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars, where he describes his moral argument of the use of war. He details the morality of war to be morally okay under certain conditions and in order for the war to be justified, it also has to be conducted under certain conditions; these moral frameworks are known as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. And although Walzer’s moral framework is applicable to many situations and defines whether a war is just or unjust, it does not necessarily apply for situations regarding interstate conflicts and conflicts regarding groups that are not considered to be political states, it does not necessarily cover the aftermath/consequences of a just or unjust war, and overall, is questionable in of itself as the weight and value of this framework is only applicable when globally-recognized political states deem it to be applicable; i.e. it is only enforced when there are those who enforce and follow it. The United Nations is the embodiment of civil conduct amongst nations and upholds human rights, jus ad bellum, and jus in bello in its core; yet, this establishment is questionable in of itself as there are occurrences today where strong powers are not held accountable for their actions especially in terms of humanitarian crises.

Just war theory has been a major factor in many major wars and in terms of Walzer’s jus ad bellum and jus in bello, these two are the moral frameworks that encompass the right and wrong in the use of force. Although, it brings into question what or who actually falls under these two categories, especially in terms of differentiating combatants and non-combatants, and the use of armed conflict against either of them. In David Boucher’s journal of political theory, “The just War Tradition and its Modern Legacy: Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello”, he discusses the consecutive framework of jus ad bellum and jus in bello and explores the changing principles of modern use of jus in bello after 9/11. In addition, Boucher discusses the added dimension of terrorism in the relationship of jus ad bellum and jus in bello after 9/11 and explores the conflicts of non-state and state conflicts. The goal of theorizing about war is based upon the belief that civilization exists to gradually decrease the use of force against others, and the need to use force must have a reason. Since the Bush administration’s efforts on the ‘war on terror’, the frameworks regarding jus in bello have been obscured in the sense that those who aid the ‘terror’ revoke themselves of protection in the laws of war because they are working for a non-sovereign state. Even though this may be the case, the Bush administration’s claim to ‘anticipatory’ self-defense is questionable since the units they were up against were considered to be participants aiding terror, and the justness of the declaration of the ‘war on terror’ against non-sovereign states is not explored in jus in bello, or in other words jus in bello does not necessarily account for asymmetric conflicts and non-sovereign states. In addition, it is questionable since their claim to the declaration of war in the Middle East had no underlying grounds for intentional peace. States do have the right to use force in the name of self-defence; however, that brings up another question about the leeways in the suspension of the laws of war and where accountability is needed in regards to the use of force, human crises, and intervention.

One of the most notable crises in very recent years was the Taliban control over Afghanistan, the United States had withdrawn its troops and military as the Taliban had taken control and elected its own cabinet in office. And as this seemed like an inevitable turn of events, on the other side of the coin, the one who suffers are the Afghani people. The New York Times’s article, “As Need in Afghanistan Grows Dire, Aid Groups Plead for Help”, discusses the exacerbated change in Afghanistan’s health care system and economic system. As the article states, six-hundred million dollars in foreign aid for Afghanistan’s health care system has been put on hold by international donors and the World Bank, ever since the Taliban control. This is a major cause for concern as famine, drought, and sickness is on the rise and as the temperature decreases. Of course, there is the fear that giving the foreign aid will go into the wrong hands, yet, it is the Afghani people who bear the weight and experience the suffering. As the healthcare system has cut off from international aid and funding, there are many Afghan people who are not able to pay to have their medical needs met; and even worse, essential medications in many health facilities, although decreasing due to funding, have run out. Drawing back to Walzer’s moral framework, even though the states have the claim to use force in the name of self-defense, are they not responsible or at least accountable for the aftermath in which they have wholly or partially caused? Walzer’s framework does not cover the aftermath or consequence of a war, regardless of whether it is claimed to be just and his framework does not include states that are non-sovereign or as seen as threats. It is unfair to not include additional conditions on whether the said war is just or unjust based on the reason and method for war; there needs to be conditions like jus post bellum, or post-war conditions. Because without any money into the system, it seems that Afghanistan’s future could be heading into a darker direction as its exacerbating healthcare system and economy call for humanitarian intervention from organizations such as the United Nations, although with humanitarian crises like in Afghanistan, its legitimacy is in question.

Over the recents years, there has been more pressure for humanitarian intervention, even though its legitimacy has been in question since its beginning. In situations like the Iraq war, in Bosnia, in Kosova, humanitarian intervention has been the disguise for the use of force; and even though the United Nation has increased its peacekeepers over the years, its legitimacy is challenged. In Miles Kalher’s article, “Legitimacy, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Institutions”, on global institutions, he discusses and explores the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and the international organizations such as the United Nations Security Council which authorizes the use of force for humanitarian crises. It questions whether there is a need for change in international organizations and their conditions of humanitarian intervention as biases for the conservation of state sovereignty and overall increase of mass violence has increased over the years and increases the need for humanitarian intervention and legitimacy. He talks about how the Iraq war further deepens the cut for humanitarian action and clearly lays out the norms in which shape and reshape the standard for humanitarian intervention and legitimacy, those norms are: human rights, peace preservation, and sovereignty. Kalher explains that these three norms have been reprioritized by international constituencies in a process that has been shaped by international institutions, or in other words actions of international institutions are enforced only when these institutions deem it to be, regardless of whether the severity of the crises that calls for it. Kalher even states that the norms governing humanitarian intervention have emulated specific international and institutional environments. Acceptance of the role of the United Nations Security Council has been based on the role of non-permanent members to protect sovereignty against invasion of dominant powers. Overall, the framework that Kalher lays out is that the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is based on the legitimacy of international institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, and that there needs to be modifications to these institutions, which are established for the protection of peace and human rights, in order to ensure the protection of people from humanitarian crises and the violation of human rights like in Afghanistan.

In addition to humanitarian crises on the rise, the Chinese government has come under fire over leaked documents regarding detainment of Uighur Muslims and other ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region. This 400-page document was revealed in The New York Times’s article, “’Absolutely No Mercy’: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims” which exposed the chilling and shocking details of the placement of Chinese ethnic minorities into what is described as “training schools”. As many as a million Chinese ethnic minorities have been rounded up and sent to these camps. And although the government has denied these claims, the document revealed how Xi Jinping instructed his officials to inform the students and children of detained people that they have been sent away for “re-education” and have been given a subtle and insinuating threat that their stay is dependent on how they, the students and children, act. The Party’s efforts in Xinjiang were as they described, to battle extreme Islamism and to ‘reshape’ these people into loyalists to the Party. This article sheds light on the crackdown of Chinese ethnic minorities and their extreme methods of force in their internment camps. When this policy was set into action by Xi Jinping, many of his officials questioned it as it would bring more tension between China and its ethnic minorities; unfortunately, these officials were purged as the Party did not tolerate it. The article describes the Party’s internal movements and their strict policies on rounding up people in Xinjiang. Even though the Chinese government denies the facilitation and internment of Chinese minorities, the article uncovers the clear breach on human rights. There is coherent evidence to suggest that the Chinese government is using dehumanizing methods on their detainees, and is an apparent sign of a humanitarian crisis. And with the situation in Afghanistan, these two crises are a major call for humanitarian intervention, which international institutions like the United Security Council are designed to implement. The inconsistency or hypocrisy, especially with the detainment of Chinese ethnic minorities, is a refusal of intervention of major powers; and this norm implies a hierarchy of what state can be intervened in the name of humanitarian intervention. Or in other words, the framework of these international institutions which reflect Walzer’s jus ad bellum and jus in bello, is only applicable when globally-recognized political states deem it to be applicable. Especially when it comes to major powers like China or Russia, the United Nations seems quite hesitant on intervention since much of the world is dependent on their exports; however, their lack of action damages their legitimacy and it is apparent that there is a hierarchy of power.

This hierarchy of power or bias is encapsulated in Harold Young’s article, “Humanitarian Intervention: Powerless in a Globalizing World?”; he further discusses the bias for state sovereignty and personal interests of politically recognised states, and articulates the powers that permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have on referrals to the International Criminal Court. Young goes on to argue that the personal interests of states will more likely override the referrals to the ICC and if the state is of geopolitical interest to any member of the United Nations Security Council, then the case will not be even looked at. His research finds that the individuals, who are referred to the ICC, belong to states of less geopolitical interest of the UNSC member, which brings into question the legitimacy of the UN and norms of humanitarian intervention versus self-interest. Young highlights the juxtaposition in the purpose of international institutions like the UNSC and the bias for state sovereignty; in addition, the bias allows permanent members of the UNSC to target states. Especially with the situation in Xinjiang, China, it goes to prove that large powers like China can go unchecked when it comes to human rights violations. And with Afghanistan, it was the actions of the United States and other major powers that led to the current state of Afghanistan. With all the current situations and crises around the globe and the fact that the United States and China, which are permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, have the power to veto referrals to the International Criminal Court, it is obvious that there is a bias of higher power and the Walzer’s framework of jus ad bellum and jus in bello incorporated in these international institutions is legitimate in its own right, but the legitimacy of these institution is questionable since there are major calls for humanitarian intervention but the UN is not sending in aid, especially if it’s against states like China and now Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

A last example of a situation on the rise is south of the border, in the New York Times’ article, “Biden Pushes Deterrent Border Policy after Promising ‘Humane’ Approach”, exposes the ongoing situation as Haitiian families are camped in unsanitary and unlivable conditions, and are rounded up and deported. This call for deportation is from the Biden administration, who back in February stated that in his term goal was to, “undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration”; yet, his approach seems to take on traits of the previous administration. And although the Biden administration has pushed for more immigration laws, there has been stagnant progress in Congress and push backs from federal judges. However, the clock still ticks as more Haitiians cross the border seeking asylum; and even though their claims are instability and poverty, that is not enough to officially win asylum in the United States. There have been calls to humanitarian organizations for better ways to help Haitiian migrants as they wait for processing, but there has been much debate surrounding border patrol and policy in the Biden Administration. And even though this is not considered to be a humanitarian crisis, it highlights the hypocrisy of the US’s actions in regards to invading other states in the disguise of humanitarian intervention and refusal and neglect of migrants seeking asylum. Every country has the right to deny migrants, but it is unfair when the reasons for these people seeking asylum are partly from the US’s action or participation back in their home country.

Regardless of whether a war is just or unjust, international institutions that reflect Walzer’s framework are not completely fulfilling its purpose of intervening in humanitarian crises, like the detainment of Chinese ethnic minorities and the inhumane practices that are used against them, and the exacerbating system in Afghanistan. And even though jus ad bellum and jus in bello lay out the framework for a just war, or the conditions to use force, it does not necessarily regard the inevitable consequences which as a result further deepens the need for actual humanitarian intervention. The lack of humanitarian intervention against major powers is a big indication that only they have the power to enforce international law out of their own interests; or in other words, these laws are not enforced when the risks outweigh the benefit of protecting lives and human rights. Walzer’s framework is legitimate in its own right, but international institutions that reflect his framework need to expand on the consequences or aftermath of war and actually commit to enforce laws, especially strong powers around the world that are collectively responsible for humanitarian crises. The bias and hierarchy of power in these international institutions like the UNSC, further damages its image as corrupt, and until modifications and adjustments are made, these crises may lead to situations beyond control.

The post Vanessa Van Dinh Kurt Nutting PHIL315-01 November 29, 2021 PHIL315 Final Writing appeared first on PapersSpot.