Justification for War??

What does Jeremy Corbyn have to do to convince his party members that the case for war has not been made?

Following David Cameron’s justification for war in the House of Commons on Thursday, I thought it might be worthwhile trying to get my head around what constitutes a legitimate and credible justification for war. Personally, I find it very difficult to justify military action in any scenario but it is vitally important that we all understand the boxes David Cameron is trying to tick so that he can justify what is effectively a war against ISIS.



It seems that there is something called “Just War Theory” that seems to correlate with the Geneva Convention – 4 existing Conventions dealing with:

Armed forces on land (for the Amelioration of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces and Field – 1894).

Armed forces at sea (for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea – 1906).

Prisoners of war (Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War – 1929).

Protection of civilians during wartime. (Relative to Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War – 1948).

Just War Theory :

The criteria that must be met for a war to be considered just are described under two headings: Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.

Jus Ad Bellum (“Right to War”) :

Jus Ad Bellum deals with the pre-conditions under which military force can be considered as “just”.

Just Cause : examples include defence against an aggressor, protection of human rights, the bringing of wrong-doers to justice.

: examples include defence against an aggressor, protection of human rights, the bringing of wrong-doers to justice. Legitimate Authority : war must be declared by a legitimate authority or government which has the support of its people.

: war must be declared by a legitimate authority or government which has the support of its people. Right Intention : the aim of the military action must be the bringing of justice and peace and not an act of vengeance.

: the aim of the military action must be the bringing of justice and peace and not an act of vengeance. Last Resort : military conflict must be seen to be the only possible option i.e. all other options have been exhausted.

: military conflict must be seen to be the only possible option i.e. all other options have been exhausted. Proportionality : the success of the military action must not be outweighed by the risks associated with taking the action.

: the success of the military action must not be outweighed by the risks associated with taking the action. Reasonable Hope for Success: there must be a reasonably good possibility that the pursuit will be successful. To risk soldier’s lives in a futile campaign that will also be economically costly is not permitted.

Jus in Bello (“The Law in Waging War”) :

Jus in Bello relates to guidelines of conduct on the battlefield:

Discrimination : there must be a clear discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. The targeting of non-combatants is strictly forbidden.

: there must be a clear discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. The targeting of non-combatants is strictly forbidden. Proportionality: the success of the campaign must not be outweighed by the loss of human life and/or the forceful denial of basic human rights, e.g. bombing vital infrastructure; hospitals, disrupting water and food supplies etc.

Let’s see if David Cameron can meet each of the criteria to justify the war on ISIS:

Just Cause : David Cameron has been careful with his language to tick this box. He talks of ISIS being a threat to the UK and an oppressive regime. I think the question is whether it truly is to bring wrong-doers to justice or to wipe them out then wipe Assad out immediately afterwards. The case has not been made here in my opinion.

: David Cameron has been careful with his language to tick this box. He talks of ISIS being a threat to the UK and an oppressive regime. I think the question is whether it truly is to bring wrong-doers to justice or to wipe them out then wipe Assad out immediately afterwards. The case has not been made here in my opinion. Legitimate Authority : Legitimate Authority in my view has to be the United Nations. Does Cameron have the support of the UK people? That is impossible to say and given the fact that 2/3rds did not vote Conservative in May, it is hardly a convincing majority Government. This part can be met by a UN resolution and nothing else in my view.

: Legitimate Authority in my view has to be the United Nations. Does Cameron have the support of the UK people? That is impossible to say and given the fact that 2/3rds did not vote Conservative in May, it is hardly a convincing majority Government. This part can be met by a UN resolution and nothing else in my view. Right Intention : Cameron starts with the aim of justice and peace but the more he is challenged, the more the vengeance bit creeps in, i.e. supporting our French neighbours in their vengeance against ISIS. France certainly fails this test and the UK does also in my opinion. Particularly when Cameron wanted to bomb the Assad regime two years ago. His intentions here are cloudy at best.

: Cameron starts with the aim of justice and peace but the more he is challenged, the more the vengeance bit creeps in, i.e. supporting our French neighbours in their vengeance against ISIS. France certainly fails this test and the UK does also in my opinion. Particularly when Cameron wanted to bomb the Assad regime two years ago. His intentions here are cloudy at best. Last Resort : Is military action a last resort? I honestly believe that the real ISIS threat will come through radicalization of British citizens who feel disenfranchised and let down by inequality that is rife in British society. This can happen through social media, the prison system and other settings. Are the social media masterminds of ISIS sitting in Iraq and Syria on their computers? Highly unlikely! Addressing the disenfranchised and the inequality in society should be first step to remove the conditions necessary for someone to be “radicalized”. I strongly disagree that military action is the last resort.

: Is military action a last resort? I honestly believe that the real ISIS threat will come through radicalization of British citizens who feel disenfranchised and let down by inequality that is rife in British society. This can happen through social media, the prison system and other settings. Are the social media masterminds of ISIS sitting in Iraq and Syria on their computers? Highly unlikely! Addressing the disenfranchised and the inequality in society should be first step to remove the conditions necessary for someone to be “radicalized”. I strongly disagree that military action is the last resort. Proportionality : If Cameron is talking just about airstrikes then the risk to UK military is lower, although still incredibly dangerous. However, once you put boots on the ground there is likely to be loss of armed forces. However, the allied forces appear to have a propensity for targeting hospitals, schools, etc. so how proportional will the loss of Syrian civilian lives be to the loss of UK lives through an ISIS attack? Prevention of an ISIS attack on UK soil will not be determined by bombing Syria that is for sure. If anything, it will increase the likelihood of an ISIS attack.

: If Cameron is talking just about airstrikes then the risk to UK military is lower, although still incredibly dangerous. However, once you put boots on the ground there is likely to be loss of armed forces. However, the allied forces appear to have a propensity for targeting hospitals, schools, etc. so how proportional will the loss of Syrian civilian lives be to the loss of UK lives through an ISIS attack? Prevention of an ISIS attack on UK soil will not be determined by bombing Syria that is for sure. If anything, it will increase the likelihood of an ISIS attack. Reasonable Hope for Success : The Iraq and Libyan wars classically failed this test and it should have been reasonable to foresee such an outcome with all of the warnings before any decision was made. The key here is Cameron’s suggestion of arming “moderate rebels”. History repeating itself again. Let’s be clear, if the US, UK and allies continue to arm and fund so-called moderate rebels, this cycle will continue. On that basis, there is no reasonable hope for success.

: The Iraq and Libyan wars classically failed this test and it should have been reasonable to foresee such an outcome with all of the warnings before any decision was made. The key here is Cameron’s suggestion of arming “moderate rebels”. History repeating itself again. Let’s be clear, if the US, UK and allies continue to arm and fund so-called moderate rebels, this cycle will continue. On that basis, there is no reasonable hope for success. Discrimination: The waters get very muddy here. The allied forces may say they are hitting targets with ISIS forces but the likelihood is that there will be significant loss of civilian life, either through error or by way of ISIS surrounding themselves with civilians. However, it cannot be determined whether this test will be failed until the RAF air strikes begin.

In summary, I do not believe the case has been made for war and have based my decision on the internationally established “Just War Theory” which correlates with the terms of the Geneva Convention.

The big question is whether Labour will take a unified stand against the proposed air strikes or if there will be a free vote. Jeremy Corbyn should be framing his arguments using the “Just War Theory” principles. If his shadow cabinet and other Labour MP’s decide to vote for war despite Jeremy Corbyn successfully arguing that each of the conditions have not been met, I think Labour supporters should really think hard about the decisions of their elected representatives.

I genuinely hope Jeremy Corbyn is successful in his battle to convince his own party that the case has not been made for war. It clearly has not!

Like this: Like Loading...