World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

Over the next few days, I will examine the status of an American attack on Syria using the framework of the Just War Doctrine.  As the US and the world comes closer to making a decision whether to use force in response to the alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government, we all, as citizens, need to make up our own minds as to the morality of such a response.  The Just War Doctrine is one such framework.  It is not a legal code, but rather a series of questions that force an observer to examine specific points which may often be ignored by statespeople as they work to serve their respective country’s national interest rather than the collective morality of humanity.

As a refresher, here are the principles of the Just War:

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

In today’s post, I will examine the first principle.  Is a US military attack truly a last resort to a wrong suffered?  Has the US exhausted all other non-violent options?

The conflict in Syria began as part of a regional phenomenon dubbed the “Arab Spring.”  The movement starts in December of 2010 in Tunisia and spread throughout the Middle East.  In January 2011 protests began in Syria against the lack of human rights.  The Arab League was the first international organization to initiate a peace process in Syria and in November 2011 the Syrian government agreed to let League observers into the country to monitor how the protests were being handled by the government.   The League noted a wide variety of humanitarian abuses and by January 2012 the League withdrew its monitors.  The Arab League, however, did introduce a resolution to the UN Security Council on 31 January 2012 calling upon Syrian President Assad to step down.  Russia and China both vetoed the resolution.

The UN then launched a peace effort led by former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.  Annan specifically tried to enlist Russian support, and a UN peace-keeping mission was sent to Syria.  Annan resigns his position because he believes the peacekeeping mission was not viable and in June 2012, the peacekeeping mission is suspended.  Throughout the period, violence in Syria only escalated.

Lakhdar Brahimi, a representative of the Arab League, takes over Annan’s position.  In May/June 2013, both the US and Russia propose a peace conference to be held in Geneva to resolve the violence.  That meeting is postponed by the US, and although still proposed, does not seem to be highly likely.

Finally the G8 Summit held in June 2013 devoted a great deal of its agenda to the situation in Syria.  No proposals emerged from those discussions.

The most recent discussions on Syria, the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, revealed large cleavages in the international community about the prospects for peace in Syria.  No proposals emerged from these discussions, and most of the participants prefer to wait for the UN to issue its report on the facts of the chemical weapons assault before making a decision.

There is little question that there have been sustained and serious attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully.  These attempts have failed, for a variety of reasons.  One could make the argument that Requirement #1 of the Just War Doctrine has been satisfied.

I will take up Requirement #2 tomorrow.