Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
can war's between states ever be just??
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by mik366 (U2920296) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
can war's between states ever be just??
Is the such thing as just war in international relations?? Is there an argument that in some case's the use of force can bring good results for the human race, so much as to outweigh the evils of war itself??
mik366 -
Message 2
Posted by Local Hero (U3080508) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
The defeat of Nazi Germany? I think that was a just and necessary war. The consequences of not fighting are too horrific to contemplate.
Michael -
Message 3
Posted by mik366 (U2920296) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
I agree that in the view of Britain, and the Soviets it was a necessary war as you say!
Yet I dont see the reasons for WWII (or any war) in the relams of justice, henace they seem to me not to be just! Instead poltics seems to be the true cause of war! -
Message 4
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Well if there had been no was against Germany in 1939 at what point would the slaughter of civilians and the subjugation of other nations mean that war became justifiable? Do you have to wait for the aggressor to roll up to oyur door step? And by then wouldn't it be too little too late?
-
Message 5
Posted by mik366 (U2920296) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
Im not suggesting that Britain should not of gone to war in 1939! My point is that the reason was not justice!
I was trying to find out if there was an example of a state going to war for justice, thus a just war! -
Message 6
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Thursday, 23rd February 2006
War is almost always just! If a government who considers war rationally feels the need to resort to its use, this is most often the case due to stagnation. Such stagnation can take many forms however; unsuitable socio-political structure often resorts to civil war, foreign policy confrontations, directed by economic and political interests, leads to conventional war and war often stimulates a stagnant technological, scientific environment. Consider any war and you will see its causes in a form of stagnation, be it economic, socio-political or international relations. Given that this creates progression in all areas of human activity, war can be fully justified from this perspective.
You may argue from the perspective of an individual, morning the many loses war inflicts. But this, what you describe as βthe evils of warβ, is to wholly miss the huge benefit war brings to humanity.
This is a very interesting topic, Iβll post more when I have considered it in more depth. -
Message 7
Posted by mik366 (U2920296) on Friday, 24th February 2006
"Consider any war and you will see its causes in a form of stagnation, be it economic, socio-political or international relations. Given that this creates progression in all areas of human activity, war can be fully justified from this perspective."
are you suggesting that states go to war for domestic benift??? And that this domestic increase (which is questionable in its self) justifies war???
I agree that war has created some great things like medicine etc yet to resign ourselfs to the idea that mankind needs war to induce develpoment is a horrible and limiting belif!! -
Message 8
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Friday, 24th February 2006
Of cause I am saying that states go to war for domestic benefit, why else would they?
If war is the main stimulus to progression in all human affairs, then why is it a "horrible and limited beliefβ to hold that war is necessary? You have disregarded what I have said and not given a reason why. If you can give evidence for anything else that stops stagnation (I hope I have made this idea clear enough) please share it.
Human death and the destruction of property, livelihoods and intense misery caused is regrettable, but it is a cost I praise my forefathers for bearing so that I donβt live in a cave! -
Message 9
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Saturday, 25th February 2006
War is always in self-interest. I know of no example when it was otherwise.
-
Message 10
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
Indeed, whether its in the interest of a few or a majority within a given group.
-
Message 11
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Monday, 27th February 2006
Has anyone else got any opinions on this very interesting subject?
-
Message 12
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
If Britain and France going to war in 1939 to stop German aggression (although not Russian aggression) is not just then what is? Neither country wanted to - they made things worse by avoiding it as long as possible. Nor did either nation at the time see themselves threatened by Germany - both Britain and France envisaged a repeat of WW1 with years of trench warfare but eventual Allied victory. It seems as far from national interest as possible.
The international effort to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait was just but there was also self-interest. The film Black Hawk Down shows the US getting involved in Somalia with no self-interest and attempt to bring justice but they quickly got out - in a democracy the public does not want wars that have no self-interest because they immediately want to know why their sons (and daughters) are dying in some foreign field.
So what counts as 'just'? If it is to bring a criminal leader to justice then the operations in Yugoslavia and even the invasion of Iraq count. If its having 'right' on your side then the Crusaders felt their cause was just. -
Message 13
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
can war's between states ever be just??
Is the such thing as just war in international relations?? Is there an argument that in some case's the use of force can bring good results for the human race, so much as to outweigh the evils of war itself??
³ΎΎ±°μ366Μύ
Its all a matter of culture andd perspective. Their is no absolute 'Just' that each war can be weighed against. Each generation will pass comment on the history of conflicts filtered through the lens of comtemporary experience and values. We generally live in a pretty anti-militaristic epoch, so the boundaries of a 'just' war are pretty rigid to us. Another time and place and looking at the king's missus sideways would be enough justification for war.
Elistan -
Message 14
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
I'm with those who believe that wars are always fought for the self interest of the state as defined by that state.
As a pacifist I believe that no war is 'just' whatever definition of that word is used.
Furthermore, conscripting peope to fight (or to contribute in any way to the war effort) makes an entirely wrong assumption that the citizen owes a duty to to the state which includes the ultimate self sacrifice. -
Message 15
Posted by jane (U1272878) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Forgive me for joining in but how can you not beleive WWW2 was just? Millions of innocent people were being slaugtered because of the barbaric idealism of a madman. These people will always exist-do we allow them to kill and maim or do we fight back?Best wishes.
-
Message 16
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Forgive me for joining in but how can you not beleive WWW2 was just? Millions of innocent people were being slaugtered because of the barbaric idealism of a madman. These people will always exist-do we allow them to kill and maim or do we fight back?Best wishes. Β
It may be presumptuous of me but I'll assume you're asking me these questions.
As I said, I'm a pacifist, so I don't believe ANY war to be just.
However, my pacifism relates only to war between states. I don't have a problem with the use of violence in personal self defence or in defence of my wife and children or my property for example. I believe for example that George Martin should not have been jailed for killing the burglar who broke into his house.
Hypothetically, if the Germans (or USSR etc.) had invaded Britain in 1940, I would have headed for the hills and fought the invaders because it's then my personal business as they're having a go at me and my family.
The notion of the state conscripting me into the forces and telling me who I have to kill and when is abhorent to me. More importantly, the notion that the state has some right to tell me when I have put myself into danger and when I have to die is even more abhorent to me.
As for what other govts do in their own (or other peoples') back yards - it's simply none of my business. -
Message 17
Posted by blahdiblahdiblah (U3259804) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
WelshLibrarian I'm afraid I find your reasoning pretty bizarre. You regard Tony Martin shooting a fleeing burglar in the back as being just, yet view WWII as unjust!
You regard acts of violence by an individual for self defence as just, but violence by an organised society for it's own self defence as unjust. I can't see any principle or logic in your viewpoint.
Are you sure you aren't really an anarchist rather than a pacifist?!
I think WWII is the best (maybe only) example of a just War. The Allies bent over backwards to appease Germany and accepted the breach of some of the more unreasonable terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
But they weren't dealing with a reasonable statesman in Hitler, but a megalomaniac with an evil belief in German racial superiority, who would settle for nothing less than world domination.
The Allies had no choice but to fight in their own self defence, and the defence of freedom in Europe, quite apart from the eventual Holocaust which would have been justification for war in any case. -
Message 18
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
WelshLibrarian I'm afraid I find your reasoning pretty bizarre. You regard Tony Martin shooting a fleeing burglar in the back as being just, yet view WWII as unjust!
You regard acts of violence by an individual for self defence as just, but violence by an organised society for it's own self defence as unjust. I can't see any principle or logic in your viewpoint.
Are you sure you aren't really an anarchist rather than a pacifist?!
I think WWII is the best (maybe only) example of a just War. The Allies bent over backwards to appease Germany and accepted the breach of some of the more unreasonable terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
But they weren't dealing with a reasonable statesman in Hitler, but a megalomaniac with an evil belief in German racial superiority, who would settle for nothing less than world domination.
The Allies had no choice but to fight in their own self defence, and the defence of freedom in Europe, quite apart from the eventual Holocaust which would have been justification for war in any case.Β
The priciple I follow is that of self-preservation. I'm also a devout (physical) coward.
I am not an anarchist. I believe in the rule of law, up to a point, but I also believe in what is usually called 'small government'.
I particularly believe that the right of the state to expect 'duty' from its citizens stops well short of forcing them to take any part in war. -
Message 19
Posted by mik366 (U2920296) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Everyone seems to think that WWII is a'just' war!
Let me put this idea to you who agree!
Britain and France claimmed they went to war against Germany for the 'just' cause of restoring Poland's soverenity!
Yet they did nothing to help the Poles, even in the defeat of Germany they allowed Poland to be re-invaded by the Soviets!
WWII was not a just war, it was, i belive, a war to redress the balance of power in Europe, and later an internaitonal competion between to growing superpowers for who got what from the peace! The Idea of justice is lacking at the poltical level! Though it is arguabule that it was present in the lower levels??
cheets mik366 -
Message 20
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
WelshLibrarian I'm afraid I find your reasoning pretty bizarre. You regard Tony Martin shooting a fleeing burglar in the back as being just, yet view WWII as unjust!
You regard acts of violence by an individual for self defence as just, but violence by an organised society for it's own self defence as unjust. I can't see any principle or logic in your viewpoint.
Are you sure you aren't really an anarchist rather than a pacifist?!
I think WWII is the best (maybe only) example of a just War. The Allies bent over backwards to appease Germany and accepted the breach of some of the more unreasonable terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
But they weren't dealing with a reasonable statesman in Hitler, but a megalomaniac with an evil belief in German racial superiority, who would settle for nothing less than world domination.
The Allies had no choice but to fight in their own self defence, and the defence of freedom in Europe, quite apart from the eventual Holocaust which would have been justification for war in any case.Β
The priciple I follow is that of self-preservation. I'm also a devout (physical) coward.
I am not an anarchist. I believe in the rule of law, up to a point, but I also believe in what is usually called 'small government'.
I particularly believe that the right of the state to expect 'duty' from its citizens stops well short of forcing them to take any part in war.Β
Sorry blahdi etc.,
I should have given a fuller answer than I did previously, but someone actually wanted me to do some work!
Firstly, thank you for correcting my mistake. I knew I'd got Tony Martin's name wrong.
My reasoning is quite easy to understand when one realises that I do not believe that states/societies should be allowed to behave in the same way as individuals.
I make a clear differentiation between a nation or a state or a society. and the individual. The individual has the right of self-defence, and by extension the right to defend his family and property. The state, in my view, has no such right, or, if it does, not in the same way as the individual.
Specifically, my problem with the state's right to self-defence is when that state sees fit to conscript its citizens against their will. This IMO, they do not and should not have a right to do. When I take responsibility for defending myself by killing others, I am not forcing anyone else to kill on my behalf. The state does exactly that when it conscripts its citizens. I suppose that, essentially, I want to reserve the right to myself to choose the cause for which I die and the place and circumstances of any violent death, - that's in the unlikely event that I would ever consent to die for any cause. Self sacrifice just isn't my bag.
On the separate point of Tony Martin, I don't really see that the direction the burglar was facing when he was shot has any bearing on the rights and wrongs of whether Mr Martin had the right to shoot him. Burglars know that they have no right to be in another person's house. They know that breaking and entering is illegal. -
Message 21
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Firstly, WelshLibrarian, I would like to enlighten you to the fact that humans are social creatures. All of our actions have some bearing on other. Without our social functions we would have no cloths, sustenance or even culture. To say you would not contribute to the defence of the society, which prevents you from living in the dirt, makes me thinks you have a profound miss understanding of the world we live in.
Also, as I have said, war is, when undertaken in respects to real circumstances, always just. Given the long term benefits of warfare, even conscription, often the only option for a government to raise an army historically, is also just. How can any one claim war is morally unjust and an insatiable destructive force when you considered to the huge benefits it has given to humanity? -
Message 22
Posted by mik366 (U2920296) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Lyceum2,
I agree that we all act for the beinfit of our society's! Yet you ignore the fact that war in the tradtional senes is between nation states not society's! Nation States are not created by a social process!
You state that "when undertaken in respects to real circumstances, always just. Given the long term benefits of warfare"
These benefits are a consequence of war! when we talk of 'just' war, we mean two ideas:
1, is the cause of war just i.e. humanitarian intervention
2, the way we conduct the war, is that just, i.e. not using chemical weapons, not killing civillans!
cheers mik366 -
Message 23
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
OK, I see what you are saying. however my augment that war is extremely beneficial to mankind is still a valid point, especially if war is considered in relation to the continuity culture and civilisation.
On the points you have brought up I would like to clear a common misconception. Britain and the other world powers did not wage war with the Nazi government of Germany because they though it was the moral thing to do. nations do not conduct in warfare over purely ideological/moral reasons.
On your second point, and given that war is necessary, the current international laws and sentiments concerning the waging of war are civilised and honourable. As such, those nations who abide by those rules of engagement should receive the same respect. However, if a party goes against the agreed conventions, they should not be fought with the same degree of hour and respect and no rule should govern the combat of these faction. so, because of this, the bombing of German cities is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
Also, nation states are defiantly the product of social function. One must remember that social groups are often formed by many more social subgroups, who again are formed by such subgroups. If we consider a nation we can clearly see these subgroups. the population of different regions, the towns and cities of these reason, and down as fare as the humble family group. nations only exist because these social groups unite due to a number of factors including ethnicity, economic complimentary needs and legislative administration. As such, a war between nations is a war between social groups. This is a fact that cannot be disputed! -
Message 24
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
Firstly, WelshLibrarian, I would like to enlighten you to the fact that humans are social creatures. All of our actions have some bearing on other. Without our social functions we would have no cloths, sustenance or even culture. To say you would not contribute to the defence of the society, which prevents you from living in the dirt, makes me thinks you have a profound miss understanding of the world we live in.
Also, as I have said, war is, when undertaken in respects to real circumstances, always just. Given the long term benefits of warfare, even conscription, often the only option for a government to raise an army historically, is also just. How can any one claim war is morally unjust and an insatiable destructive force when you considered to the huge benefits it has given to humanity?Β
I find the notion that I can be 'enlightened' in any way, shape or form by a person who believes that war is beneficial to mankind to be deeply offensive and insulting.
I'm perfectly well aware of how the world works, - I've been around for long enough. I have developed a very cynical and jaundiced view of the ambitious, self serving, callous and indifferent rulers who take us to war.
The only 'benefit' I can even imagine you allude to is the fact that technology advances faster than it would otherwise during wars as both sides scramble to develop more efficient methods of slaughtering each other. I just don't accept that the speed of technological advancement is worth the price paid. And I certainly don't buy the argument you seem to be making that technology stands still during peace time and that war is the only spur. The evolution of technolgy may be slow during peacetime, but I prefer it that way.
At the risk of repeating myself, I don't opt out of society. I merely believe that society should have the least possible governance and that the right of the state to exact 'duty' from its citizenry stops short of both demanding the ultimate sacrifice and of expecting its citizens to aid any war effort. -
Message 25
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
It seems that I havenβt made my argument clear enough. War is fundamental to mankind. It, or its proposed application, is what stimulates progression and growth in civilised nations. In a simplified way I find you can compare it to a forest fire, many animals and plant life perishes, but the result enables the healthy progression of that environment. In an attempt to convey my opinion on the fundamental nature of war, I will describe the results of conflicts which have resulted in the βde-stagnationβ of an environment of human affairs;
Firstly, the English civil war; before this conflict the had come to arise a situation of some social tension. The steadily growing bourgeois, who had increasingly been represented in parliament, had been become increasingly discontent with the often unrestricted actions of the monarchy, especially in relation to taxation. This was shown be the rapid fractionalization of the wholly populace in the first stage of the conflict. This social βstagnationβ, coupled with the political narrative and self interest of the said faction leaders, lead to war. The result of the conflict successfully rectified this social problem with the formation, or more accurately of the progression of, the constitutional monarchy, a very important development in our socio-political history.
Secondly, the thirty years war; this conflict was the result of the political situation, the complex German governing arrangements, helped deteriorate by Christian sectarianism. The ensuing war was one of the most costly in European history. However, its resultant affect on European governments was profound, on the way they communicated and the political structural change of the major powers, and thus βde-stagnatedβ the contemporary political situation.
I havenβt had time here to go into much depth here but I hope this helps you appreciate my point. Consider most wars, in particular these conflictβs causes and results, and you will see this βde-stagnationβ. You will disagree with this augment but if you could constructively criticise it I could probable form a better response.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.