Rory
McClurg
GVPT200
The death of practicing just war theory
As globalization is
coming into fruition in the twenty-first century many things are changing and
war is not exempt from this. The very nature of warfare is changing, since the
beginning of time the general idea of war was that there were clear combatants,
generally with uniforms signifying their role within the conflict, this is no
longer the case, as states now almost exclusively fight guerilla fighters that
represent no state. Because of this, it is impossible to abide by the just war
theory in a modern world. This lack of state versus state fighting can be
attributed to globalization, which has led to the death of just war theory in
modern warfare.
The global economy is
so interconnected at this point; there is very little armed conflict between
states due to all of the global trade. It would be foolish for one state to
attack another, which is explained by the Golden Arches theory. To this point,
the Golden Arches theory has held true. Since there is little state-to-state
fighting, most modern war is established states fighting guerillas such as Al
Qaeda and FARQ, which do not abide by the rules of conventional war and
certainly don’t designate themselves with uniforms. This has led to much
frustration among state military officials, and has led to the demise of the
Jus in Bello in modern warfare, as states have employed generally
non-discriminatory methods of killing such as drones or have loosened what it
means to be a “non-combatant.” As a result of this, conventional rules such as
not harming civilians, proportional force, and soldier designation have been
thrown out the window.
Considering
these central aspects of the Just War theory have not been consistently abused
over the last half-century or so, it is logical to conclude that the Just War
theory has been destroyed by the evolution of warfare brought about by
globalization.
I think you make a good point about conflicts no longer being state v state, but you use the terminology 'war' and my understanding of the definition of war has always been that it is a conflict between two states? You make a good argument for what the current state of conflicts, which are not always between two states, but how does this necessarily mean that the just war theory doesn't hold up? In the case of a war being fought between two states, do you still think that this principle should apply?
ReplyDeleteYou make many good arguments that just war theory has been destroyed by the evolution of warfare. Also, I agree with the Golden Arches theory that globalization has created much interdependent trade that no country will attack each other, and that this caused more guerilla warfare ending the just war theory. I do not believe that Jus in Bello is gone in warfare though as there are still sets of rules. These rules though have been bent a little.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument on how just war theory has deteriorated due to the change in warfare. Specifically the change from states fighting states to fighting guerilla fighters that represent no state. Also you do a great job connecting the Golden Arches theory when you are discusing the global economy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that every point you make is valid and that the Golden Arches Theory is well explored in your paper. However, I believe that it is only a matter of time before we must redefine the rules of engagement, seeing as all combatants clearly are not in uniforms or firing in a formation. I also believe that we will begin to see the emergence of more black ops agencies more suited to this guerrilla combat, rather than conventional military soldiers.
ReplyDeleteOverall I think you make a good argument for the irrelevance for the just war theory in today's society without state to state combat. However what do you think could be an alternative in determining just acts in war with the introductions of drones and guerilla warfare? Also, you highlight Jus in bello however has jus ad bellum also disappeared?
ReplyDelete