Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/johnband/sharpener.johnband.org/index.php:1) in /home/johnband/sharpener.johnband.org/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: No more straw http://sharpener.johnband.org/2005/05/no-more-straw/ Trying to make a point Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:21:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: Brian B. http://sharpener.johnband.org/2005/05/no-more-straw/#comment-488 Sat, 28 May 2005 17:52:39 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=60#comment-488 Fascinating! But one factor that’s missing from this discussion is surely the role of the UN Security Council in granting legitimacy to (or withholding it from) the use of force by states in their international affairs, and the criteria that the Security Council is required by the Charter to apply to its decisions on the use of force. In Chapter VII of the Charter, Article 41 authorises the Council to decide “what measures **not involving the use of armed force** are to be employed”, which “may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations…” (etc., etc.). Article 42 is the key article which gives the Security Council the power to “take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security” [incidentally the word ‘maintain’ there means that the Council may decide on pre-emptive use of force before there has been an actual breach of international peace and security]: BUT Article 42 of the Charter requires the Council to be satisfied, before resorting to the use of force, “that measures provided for in Article 41 [i.e. those not involving armed force] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate”. This makes it clear that the Council may authorise the use of force, or itself use force, only in what one might, in ordinary parlance, call ‘the last resort’, and — without using that controversial phrase — the Charter language amounts to a pretty serviceable definition of ‘the last resort’. It makes it clear that the Council isn’t required actually to apply the various possible measures short of force under Art. 41 before deciding to use force: it’s enough if the Council “consider[s] that [those] measures … would be inadequate”.

These Articles of the Charter are at the heart of the post-WW2 international settlement designed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, in the words of the Preamble to the Charter, under which all members of the UN pledge themselves to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force… in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” (Art.2.4). It seems a logical and necessary inference from all this that the use by a state of force outside its own territory (other than force in self-defence as defined by Article 51 of the Charter) must be authorised by the Security Council under the Charter, not only if it is to be legal under international law, but also, equally importantly, if it is to be morally ‘right’, since the use of force without Council authority undermines the rule of law in international affairs, the sanctity of the Charter as its principal instrument, and the ability of all states and peoples to rely on the UN for their security. Thus I would argue that UN authority in accordance with the Charter has become an essential ingredient in the definition of ‘just war’ — and that the effect of Articles 41 and 42 is also to import into that definition the concept of force only as a ‘last resort’, to be used only when the Council itself, not individual governments, agrees that other measures not involving the use of force either would not be, or have not been, adequate to achieve the required result.

Incidentally, this also seems to me to make a nonsense of the assertion, increasingly made by the neocons and New Labour in defence of the illegal (and morally wrong) attacks on Iraq and Yugoslavia (over Kosovo), that a war may be illegal but morally right. That’s dangerous and unacceptable talk — as I have argued elsewhere. [Not sure if that hyperlink will work: if not, try http://tinyurl.com/awovn!

Brian
http://ephems.blogspot.com

]]>
By: Phil http://sharpener.johnband.org/2005/05/no-more-straw/#comment-481 Thu, 26 May 2005 23:26:35 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=60#comment-481 Alex – the original criteria (according to the page cited by Blimpish, for which much thanks) are sovereign authority, just cause and ‘right intention’, a slightly nebulous concept which basically seems to mean re-establishing peace, order and justice (or rather, genuinely aiming to re-establish… etc). Which would, clearly, provide a lot more definitional elbow-room than an insistence on the ‘last resort’.

That said, Walzer does appear to be a contemporary authority on (what’s currently understood by) ‘just war’, and he does put a lot of stress on the ‘last resort'; I think my argument’s worth making on those grounds if no other.

]]>
By: Alex http://sharpener.johnband.org/2005/05/no-more-straw/#comment-479 Thu, 26 May 2005 23:03:11 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=60#comment-479 As I recall it, the just war required authority, cause and a sufficient chance of success. Those criteria are enough for me

]]>
By: dearieme http://sharpener.johnband.org/2005/05/no-more-straw/#comment-471 Thu, 26 May 2005 11:34:12 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=60#comment-471 Gentlemen, are you mad? “if one makes the standards for resort to war too demanding, those in power will not listen”: those in power at the moment are so intellectually frivolous that they won’t listen anyway.

]]>
By: Blimpish http://sharpener.johnband.org/2005/05/no-more-straw/#comment-470 Thu, 26 May 2005 00:43:10 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=60#comment-470 No time to read the whole thing yet (though I will) but the ‘last resort’ criteria isn’t in the classical Just War definition. Thomas Aquinas ‘only ‘ demanded sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention. Last resort has a presence, but not a consistent one, in the tradition. For more see: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0501/articles/johnson.htm

]]>