Slouching Towards New ‘Just’ Wars: The Hegemon after September 11th

Abstract

Twentieth-century international law was in large part a struggle to reduce the evil of war by codifying a restrictive doctrine of 'just war'. The US Administration under George W. Bush has made concerted efforts to resurrect an expansive doctrine of just war: one rooted in broad moral, rather than restrictive legal, assessments of threats and punishments. Existing rules ask us to pause and inquire whether war is necessary and just. The debate over Iraq laid bare failings in these rules, requiring action. Yet the need to limit resort to war is as great as ever. Legal rules cannot prevent the use of force; nor can they prevent violations that states perceive to be in their fundamental interests. Rather, international law provides a framework against which states' actions are assessed, and imposes a heavy burden of justification. International law requires more specific, testable claims than can be offered by the rhetoric of evil.

Self-deterrence: Nuclear weapons and the enduring credibility challenge

“…60 Even if international law cannot prevent war, it ''provides a framework against which states' actions are assessed, and imposes a heavy burden of justification.'' 61 Another legal scholar contends that the circumstances under which nuclear weapons ''might legitimately be used are very narrowly circumscribed, especially by the need to strictly observe international humanitarian law,'' and that ''any first use of such weapons would almost surely be illegitimate, as would any retaliatory use not strictly limited to the extent of the attack it was countering or that violates any of the other international rules as to the threat of use of force.'' 62 Customary laws restricting particular weapons or methods of warfare have been presented as setting legal precedents against the use of nuclear weapons.…”

The Future of Preventive Wars: the case of Iraq

“…Therefore, as some scholars correctly argue, 'the history of twentieth-century international law' may be read 'as an attempt to reduce recourse to the use of force in international relations'. 107 At present, however, instead of moving forward to fortify the collective security system, the international community seems to have been moving backwards to the period of unlimited sovereignty, in which any distinction between just and unjust wars, or defensive and offensive acts, had no practical significance. Worst of all, wars are now much more extensive and devastating than they had been in the said era.…”

The Human Rights of Others: Sovereignty, Legitimacy, and “Just Causes” for the “War on Terror”

“…While in its first forty‐four years, the Security Council cited or used the terms of Chapter VII in twenty‐four resolutions; by 1993, as many resolutions were adopted every year (Chesterman 2001, 121). Others (Chandler 2001; Kennedy 2002; Chomsky 2000; Brunnée and Toope 2004) have also noted how the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia—but also Serbian and the Kosovar Albanians—have intervened politically and/or on the grounds of protecting human rights (Kennedy 2002, 981).…”