A declaration of war justify behaviour Essay

Whether or not the declaration of Just War justifies behaviour that is morally or legally unacceptable in peacetime depends firstly on the sort of behaviour we are talking about. There are a number of behaviours that are legally permitted in peacetime that many people would and do reject as morally unacceptable. This includes abortion, euthanasia and animal rights. The legal acceptability of these issues depends on the government, and varies from state to state. In this country, during peacetime it is acceptable to kill in self defence – for instance, if one’s house is being robbed and the burglar threatens the owner, the owner would not be penalized for shooting and killing the burglar. Pacifists object to all kinds of killing in both war and peacetime, whereas just war supporters try to draw parallels between civil justice and international justice in the attempt to justify certain behaviour. There are also behaviors such as propaganda, espionage and deliberate infringement of human rights that are more doubtful and are usually seen as unacceptable in peacetime. Certain examples of violent behaviour in peacetime in hindsight appear unacceptable, yet at the time those guilty were not prosecuted. There have been a number of incidents when armed Police officers have shot dead suspects who were not carrying a weapon. None of the police officers who killed those people were convicted. This is because killing in defence of innocent life is acceptable in peacetime, and the boundaries and conditions can be bended to suit the individual. Pacifists believe that therefore no killing can be acceptable on deontological grounds. Some religious people argue for the absolute sanctity of human life; they would say that ideally no incidental killings would take place if all killing was prohibited. Thus, this position would assume that a declaration of war does not justify any kind of killing either. Christian absolutists believe they are following the example of Jesus Christ by refusing to resort to violence, even if they have been treated cruelly. Therefore a declaration of just war would not be able to justify any unacceptable behaviour such as murder and violence – this would only further divide men, who are already divided by sin. Nevertheless, those who support the Just War theory believe that killing in the name of resisting an unjust oppressor is justifiable. The declaration of just war must be a proportionate response, and must discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. Oliver O’Donovan suggests war is an act of armed judgment and must be carried out by an unbiased judge to ensure its fairness. This judge must have a clear perspective on the gains and losses this act would entail and the final aim must be to bring about peace. In theory, military aggression is not defined by killing and violence. For instance, British troops that entered Iraq do not kill unless attack. Therefore killing is still self defence and this is no different to peacetime. Walzer thinks killing in self defence is justifiable and supports the theory of ‘legalist paradigm’. This means interstate justice basically reinforces the civil legal system, but on a larger scale – it is analogous. The right of a given state to defend itself must be accepted, just as an individual has the right to do the same. Walzer believed whichever side begins aggression to be automatically in the wrong. There is also the question of propaganda and whether it becomes appropriate to mislead people into thinking in a certain way in order for them to support the supposedly just war movement. In a healthy and functioning democracy during peacetime it is prohibited to lie to citizens or conceal the truth of political work. Some would argue that in wartime morale need to be boosted However, when a nation is at war, its citizens are often indoctrinated via mass media with the sort of messages that would disorientate their judgment and evoke hatred for ‘the enemy’. Propoganda can lead to disproportionate warfare and killings, therefore it cannot be justified. Human rights have always been an issue, for it is no certain whether it is morally right to deny someone the right to life in favour of another objective. From a utilitarian perspective, it would depend on whether the war was successful. If more people than soldiers killed are able to lead happy and fulfilled lives after the war ends, then it is acceptable to justify military confrontation in wartime. However, The High Court has recently decided that it soldiers human rights should not be overlooked either. This means the Ministry of Defence has to ensure the soldiers are not subjected to combat in intolerable heat or cold, and have functioning equipment. Certain equipment would be forbidden entirely, such as Nimrod planes. Of course, this would affect the damage potential of British troops, and possibly extend the war and subsequently take more lives. A utilitarian critic would ask whether in the long term this court order is going to cause more death and pain.