competent authority – Engaging Peace

Benghazi, Libya. Photo by Dennixo, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported (from Wikimedia Commons)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for his ongoing series on just war.]

How does the war in Libya, for such it is, measure up to the principles of just war?

First impressions are that it is just, so far. War was “declared” by competent authority; the U.N. Security Council Resolution and France, at least, had recognized the Benghazi rebels as a legitimate government. Qaddafi’s threat to hunt down enemies in their closets, apparent shelling of civilian areas, and promises to show no mercy indicates war was a necessary means when other dire warnings had failed. So far only military targets seem have been hit by the anti-Qaddafi forces which satisfies proportionality.

However a couple of serious questions remain. First, what sort of peace will be had? It’s not a just war until a just peace has been instituted. Lincoln’s “malice toward none, with charity for all” was prescient in this regard.

An even more troubling question is “Why don’t all the same (essentially Western) conditions apply to Bahrain?” The anti-demonstrator crackdown there has been as nasty as Qaddafi’s. And the Saudis have pitched in to help authorities suppress the demonstrations. Both Libya and Bahrain have oil but Bahrain has a U.S. Naval base.

If the Libyan war is just, then what are the same participants doing about Bahrain? This Bahrain inaction undercuts the “justness” of the Libyan action.

Michael T. Corgan, Ph.D., Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we welcome back guest contributor, Dr. Mike Corgan.]

In order for a war to be considered “just,” it needs to meet six criteria or principles, as outlined in our post on January 10. Today we look at the principle that addresses the question of who has the authority to declare war.

Kosovo refugee child's drawing of warfare — Refugee child's drawing of wartime in Kosovo. (Image in public domain; from Wikimedia Commons)

Legally, the standard for who can resort to war is embedded in the notion that actors in world affairs are states. Thus it is the state leadership that can decide upon recourse to war. Just war theory is more expansive (or vague, if you prefer).

Just war requires that war can be declared only by a “competent authority.” What this concept allows for is a non-state actor who might have in all other respects a just cause but is not recognized as being a state.

Consider Kosovo. The so-called Kosovo Liberation Army was not part of any recognized state apparatus but its war against Serbia was given de facto recognition by a coalition of willing western states. Now the new state of Kosovo is soon to be acknowledged and the KLA leadership becomes, in retrospect, a competent authority.

The problem, of course, is how to distinguish such a group from actors who are simply criminal gangs calling themselves by a grander term such as the various warring militias in Africa. The hardest case is the groups that may once have had some legitimacy by championing the oppressed but over time descended into warlord or drug lord enterprises.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University

Libya: A “just” war? (Just war, part 4)

Who can declare war? (Just war, part 3)