World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

We continue our discussion of the Just War Doctrine and a possible intervention in Syria with Principle #3 of the Doctrine:

• 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.

The Syrian case raises many questions about the “wrong” suffered.  There is no ambiguity at all that the use of chemical weapons is a criminal act that warrants a response.  But there are questions about how best to “redress” that wrong.

First, for reasons that are inexplicable to many, there remain some questions about who was responsible for the attack.  The Obama Administration has said that it is certain that the Syrian Government ordered the attack, but aside from references to satellite images that show the missiles coming from Syrian government-controlled areas, there has been no evidence that can be scrutinized.  There is some evidence that Assad did not personally order the attacks. That assertion may well be true, but it does not absolve the Syrian “government” of responsibility.  Even is some rogue element of the Syrian military used the weapons without authorization, the government of Syria is still responsible for all actions taken by its agents on its territory.  The Russians claim that the Syrian rebels are the ones who used the chemical weapons.   In short, despite the strong position taken by the Obama Administration, there are still legitimate reasons to raise questions about who inflicted the “injury.”

Second, the Syrian people suffered the injury–they have the right to respond.   They are not, however, in any position to protect themselves.  The Just War Doctrine does permit weak powers to ask for assistance from stronger allies.   The allies then act in concert to redress the injury suffered.  There is overwhelming evidence that the Syrian rebels have received assistance from a very large number of countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  The rebels have also received material assistance from the US and some European powers.  The problem with receiving outside assistance is that the outsiders rarely have redressing the injury as their sole objective–generally, the allies want something additional which complicates the matter entirely.  The US may aid the rebels in order to overthrow the Assad regime.  But is US-inspired regime change a legitimate redress?  Al Qaeda may wish to establish an Islamic state in Syria.  Is such a state consistent with the interests of those who suffered the chemical attacks?

Finally, can the Just War Doctrine tolerate a much larger definition of an injury suffered?  There is little question that the Syrian people suffered an injury.  Can one make the claim that the destruction of a well-established international norm, such as the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, is also a injury suffered by the larger international community?  Is that an injury that needs to be redressed?  Such a definition of injury would be a massive expansion of the traditional concept.  But international law is a true casualty of the attack.  Does it not also deserve to be defended?