The just war
Proponents of war have always presented their case in moralistic terms. Just war
theory has been developed by Catholic theologians. They argue that pacifism is not
appropriate in situations where one party to a violent conflict acts in a manner that
is significantly worse than the other. This means that the belligerent state resorts
to violence in a way that is clearly and unambiguously disproportionate. The notion
goes back to ancient Roman theorists like Cicero and was reinforced by Augustine
and Aquinas.
Before a just war can take place, there must be a massive invasion of human
rights, and the resort to political violence must be recognised by political authorities.
It is impossible to wage a just war if the objectives are linked to a narrow self-
interest and self-aggrandisement. There must be a reasonable chance of success and,
moreover, the counter-force must be directed against the functionaries of the hostile
state, and not against the civilian population. This force must itself be proportionate
to the objectives advanced, otherwise those who resort to counter-political violence
become indistinguishable from the belligerent state itself.
Ending a just war is as important as starting it. Surrender must be accepted when
it is offered, and punitive measures through war crimes tribunals, etc. must be
directed towards those directly responsible for the wrongdoing. Although supporters
of the Iraq War have sometimes sought to defend it as a just war, opponents have
argued that misinformation, the killing of civilians, the concern for oil and the failure
to secure international authorisation are some of the reasons why it cannot be
described as a just war.Political violence, ambiguity and the liberal state
If political violence can be justified when a state is explicitly authoritarian and denies
its opponents any channel of legal change (as in Apartheid South Africa), it becomes
terrorism when employed against a liberal state. The liberal state, as we have already
suggested, is distinctive in its opposition to force or violence as a method of settling
conflicts of interest. This is why under pressure, the liberal state has conceded rights
to wider and wider sections of the community, and it promotes in the main a culture
of self-reliance and universal freedoms. The opponents of the party in power are
entitled to use, as Wilkinson (an academic expert on political violence) pointed out,
the normal channels of democratic argument, opposition and lobbying through
political parties, pressure groups, the media and peaceful protest (1979: 40).
Given the fact that the liberal state uses as its legitimating norm the notion that
its laws are authorised, the use of violence against the liberal state is certain to be
counterproductive. Groups like the June 2nd movement and the Baader-Meinhof
group grew out of the West German student movement of the 1960s, and were
hostile to the liberal state, believing that it merely represented big business. The
bombings that they embarked upon succeeded only in provoking the state to tighter
security policies with substantial public support. As Harmon points out, the
motivating philosophy in the case of violence against liberal societies is often one450 Part 4 Contemporary ideas