Rethinking the ‘Just War’ by Jeff McMahan
Rethinking the ‘Just War’ by Jeff McMahan has two parts; part I and part II. It addresses war as an issue giving the theory to be Just War Theory. The theory gives an overview of how the theory was formed and its changes from the 16th century to the 20th. This essay gives highlights my take on the Just War Theory by McMahan.
McMahan’s primary approach to Just War theory brings together the moral codes that distinguish the conduct that creates fairness is going to war; Jus ad Bellum and the conduct that justifies war; Jus in Bello. It is more reasonable compared to the modern system, which separately treats the two notions. For instance, in McMahan’s review, the fighters would decide if the war they were fighting is or unjust. In the case of an unjust war, they choose not to fight, while in the present-day, soldiers are deduced to be equally moral regardless of whether the war they are fighting is or not. McMahan uses two terms: ‘just combatant and unjust combatant’ to provide a contrast.
I find these titles to impede his purpose because they would only apply if a soldier accepts McMahan’s revisionist system. The labeling does not apply to the traditional system discussion because it is meaningless seems to be the leading cause of McMahan’s displeasure. However, he unconsciously argues against his system using the titles by displaying the confusion when the terms are used.
An example is when he states that a sailor at Pearl Harbor in 1941 during the Japanese attack has a right not to be ambushed by the Japanese. He also states that the sailor loses his right when the ambush begins. His explanation for this is that the sailor’s only cause losing his right is because of the ambush. He concludes that this is unacceptable because, ‘when the Japanese crews conduct their surprise attack, they act permissibly according to the just war theory, even though their attack violates the principles of jus ad bellum.’ This last statement shows why his revisionist system is unreasonable because, under the traditional system, the sailor still has a right not to be attacked. The decision the Japanese made to go to war was unjust. Also, the Japanese who ambushed the sailor is not breaching the jus Bellum theory because it only directs the decision to go to war and not the decisions made during the war.
In the current system, some issues surround the just war tradition contrary to the professor’s claims, the problems arise from the evolving war practice. The tradition still bestows a feasible means that dictates just or unjust decisions for one to go to war or the acts that occur during the war. It offers the security of the variation between fighters and non-fighters. However, problems stem from the moral ideas we have based our moral beliefs in this modern era. The theologians who recognized God as the supreme authority expressed these principles, but philosophers removed the spiritual authority making the principles meaningless. What was ought to be divine became simple.
I also feel that despite the professor’s beliefs. The jus in Bello principles was formed to protect the difference between soldiers and non-soldiers and define unjust war measures. It was not derived as a means of civilians justifying their defense against combatants they saw as their enemies.
In conclusion, the efforts made by McMahan as a just war revisionist is traditional and honorable. However, his theory creates more issues than it solves.