Tag: Boston University

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

Posted on by kathiemm

[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

In honor of President Lincoln: Moving towards freedom

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we welcome the first of several contributions by our guest contributor Majed Ashy. Dr. Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He was born in Lebanon and is a Saudi Arabian. He earned his B.A, M.A, and Ph.D. in psychology from Boston University. His research in psychoneuroimmunology and political psychology focuses on childhood experience of adversity and its psychobiological consequences. He authored the Saudi Arabia chapter in State Violence and the Right to Peace: An International Survey of the Views of Ordinary People Greenwood Publishing Group / Praeger series. He is contributing several chapters to two volumes to be published by Springer Publishing Co.: Handbook on War, Torture, and Terrorism, and Handbook on Protest, Peace, Reconciliation, Apology, and Forgiveness.]

By Majed Ashy, Guest Author

Two arguments are presented repeatedly in discussions of the evolution of democracy in the Middle East: “Arabs are not ready for democracy,” and “If Arabs get more democratic rights, then some Islamic extremists will come to power and that is a threat to the whole world.”

Army trucks surrounding Tahrir Square, Cairo
Army trucks surrounding Tahrir Square, Cairo (Photo by Ramy Raoof; licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic; from Wikimedia Commons)

I heard similar alarmist arguments against women’s suffrage, African American civil rights movements, and Black liberation in South Africa. President Lincoln, whose birthday is this week, did not accept the arguments against freeing the slaves in America, but millions of people still lack freedom.

With advancements in communication technologies, Internet resources, social networks, media, satellite TV stations, and international travel, the evolution in individual empowerment and the rise of social collective awareness are natural consequences. Masses of people are rejecting as self serving and racist the “old” narratives about the necessity of oppression.

One of the problems faced in the Middle East is the communication gap between governments and the general populations. Many Middle Eastern governments are still using a “language” that does not speak to people who are educated, aware, and able to see through the narratives of oppression. The image of men on camels and horses in Tahrir square in Cairo beating protesters summarize this divide.

We have in the Middle East youth who represent the future, are linked through the Internet to people all over the world, watch satellite TV stations from almost every country, and call for human rights. On the other side we have people who come from the ancient past and deal with their problems by riding camels and beating people up.

The current conflict in the Middle East is about narratives. One narrative that has not been given a chance yet is that the Middle East can evolve into a responsible democracy that takes into account human rights, international law, and democracy. All lovers of freedom and democracy should respect and help sustain this effort.

Majed Ashy

Ordinary people: Thoughts about war and peace

Posted on by kathiemm

Ever since 9/11, the Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP) has been studying the views of ordinary people concerning war and peace and related issues.

logo for GIPGAPWe started our work at Boston University but soon attracted psychologists and other social scientists from around the world to work with us on the project.

We have investigated, for example, the extent to which people from different countries, different continents, different religions, different ethnicities, and different genders define terms like “war” and “peace” in similar—or different—ways. We have also studied people’s justifications for invading other countries or torturing prisoners of war, and explored the extent to which such justifications vary among people from different countries, religions, etc.

We have findings from countries as diverse as the United States, Iceland, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, South Africa, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, Peru, and Nicaragua.

Consider what you know about government-sponsored aggression around the world. In what countries do you think the greatest support for government-sponsored aggression can be found? We’ll report some findings in our next post.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

What is a “just” war? (Just war, Part 1)

Posted on by kathiemm
Judge's gavel
Photo by Avjoska (Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported; from Wikimedia Commons)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we welcome the first of several contributions by our guest contributor Michael Corgan. Dr. Corgan is Associate Chair of International Relations and Associate Professor of International Relations at Boston University. He is a specialist in international security, Icelandic government, and American governmental institutions. He has extensive government service in political and military planning (especially NATO) and is a media analyst on security and political affairs. He has collaborated with me on several research projects concerned with perspectives on war and peace. His most recent book is Iceland and Its Alliances: Security for a Small State (2002).]

What makes a war “just”?  Is a just war also a “legal” war?  Understanding the distinction is important as we begin to explore the topic of just war in this series of posts.

As generally accepted, just war theory imposes six criteria for identifying a war as just:

  1. The war must have a just cause
  2. It must be initiated by a proper authority
  3. It must be a last resort
  4. The use of force must be proportional to the object to be achieved
  5. There must be a chance of success when one uses force; and
  6. The ensuing peace, if attained, must also be just.

It is the first criterion, just cause, that leads to the tension between legal war and just war.

As defined in international treaties, war is legal only if it used in self-defense (of one’s self or others). Just war theory, however, goes beyond the legal mandate and seems to permit an additional use of force–specifically in the case of what we nowadays call humanitarian intervention.

Consider the wars with which you are familiar:

  • To what extent were they initiated for a just cause?
  • In which cases did the initiators claim a just cause that later proved to be not the real cause for the attack on another land?

In the next post on just war, we will give further consideration to the notion of humanitarian intervention as a justification for a “just” war.

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