Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:13:27.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intending war rightly: Right intentions, public intentions, and consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2016

Eric Grynaviski
Eric Grynaviski*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University
*
*Correspondence to: Eric Grynaviski, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University, 2115 G Sreet NW, 440 Monroe Hall, Washington, DC 20052, USA. Author’s email: ericgryn@gwu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article defends the normative status of the right intentions requirement in just war theory. Before we turn to many ethical questions about a conflict – whether there was just cause or whether a war was fought well – we often begin by asking whether the war was rightly intended. Particularly in the contemporary world, where questions of humanitarian intentions and their place in international law is an important political issue, clarifying what we mean by right intentions and showing why they matter is politically very important. Unfortunately, despite the importance of right intentions in the history of political thought, recent discussions give the concept mixed attention, leaving it obscure and difficult to apply. The first section reviews four traditional accounts, showing their underlying (and important) differences and respective weaknesses. The second section of the article argues that these models fail because they are rooted in private instead of public reason. A model of right intentions as public intentions is described and justified, where an intention is only right when the motives that underlie it can be endorsed by the group it is supposed to aid, and the opportunities it provides that group are endorsable by the intervener.

Keywords

Right IntentionsJust War Theory
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 634 - 653
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Polk, James K., The Diary of James K. Polk (Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1910), pp. 384–385 Google Scholar.

2 In Wheelan, Joseph, Invading Mexico: America’s Continental Dream and the Mexican War, 1846–1848 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2007), p. 85 Google Scholar.

3 Schroeder, John H., Mr. Polk’s War: American Opposition and Dissent, 1846–1848 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973), p. 17 Google Scholar.

4 Lincoln, Abraham, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume I (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1953), pp. 420–422 Google Scholar.

5 Augustine, The City of God Against the Pagans, trans. R.W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 632–633 Google Scholar.

6 Elshtain, Jean Bethke, Just War Against Terror (New York: Basic Books, 2003)Google Scholar; Johnson, James Turner, The War to Oust Saddam Hussein (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), pp. 18–19 Google Scholar.

7 Childress, James F., Moral Responsibility in Conflicts: Essays on Nonviolence, War, and Conscience (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1982), pp. 77–78 Google Scholar; Johnson, James Turner, ‘The just war idea: the state of the question’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 23:1 (2006), p. 169 Google Scholar.

8 O’Driscoll, Cian, The Renegotiation of the Just War Tradition and the Right to War in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Macmillan, 2008), pp. 86–87 Google Scholar.

9 Walzer, Michael, Just And Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations (4th edn, Basic Books, 1977)Google Scholar.

10 de Vitoria, Francisco, Vitoria: Political Writings, ed. Anthony Pagden and Benjamin Lawrance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 304–305 Google Scholar.

11 Kaeuper, Richard W., Holy Warriors: The Religious Ideology of Chivalry (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), p. 16 Google Scholar; Verkamp, Bernard J., ‘Moral treatment of returning warriors in the early middle ages’, The Journal of Religious Ethics, 16:22 (1988), p. 225 Google Scholar.

12 Orend, Brian, War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective (Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000), p. 190 Google Scholar.

13 Johnson, James Turner, Can Modern War Be Just? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Johnson, The War to Oust Saddam Hussein.

14 Pattison, James, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 164–165 Google Scholar; Shepsle, Kenneth, ‘Congress is a “they”, not an “it”: Legislative intent as oxymoron’, International Review of Law and Economics, 12:2 (1992), pp. 239–256 Google Scholar.

15 Walzer, Michael, Arguing About War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 94 Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., pp. 94–6.

17 See Coppieters, Bruno and Kashnivok, Boris, ‘Right intentions’, in Bruno Coppieters and Nick Fotion (eds), Moral Constraints on War (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008), pp. 78–90 Google Scholar.

18 Orend, , War and International Justice, p. 94 Google Scholar.

19 The difference between the mixed motives and outcomes oriented models is that former requires ‘mixed’ motives (some motivational connection to just and unjust goods desired from war) whereas the latter does not require any motivational connection to just cause.

20 Wheeler, Nicholas, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 37 Google Scholar.

21 Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 887–917 Google Scholar; Finnemore, Martha, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Klotz, Audie, Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen, and Sikkink, Kathyrn, The Power of Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

22 Fixdal, Mona and Smith, Dan, ‘Humanitarian intervention and just war’, Mershon International Studies Review, 42:2 (1998), p. 288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 May, Larry, Aggression and Crimes Against Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 12.

24 Rawls, John, Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Walzer, Just And Unjust Wars; Wheeler, Saving Strangers.

25 Walzer, , Just And Unjust Wars, p. 106 Google Scholar.

26 Rawls, John, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 213 Google Scholar.

27 Grynaviski, Eric, ‘The bloodstained spear: Public reason and declarations of war’, International Theory, 5:2 (2013), pp. 238–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 This definition does not take a position on the meaning of ‘intention’; much of the debate in moral philosophy and just war theory focuses on the meaning of intention rather than the meaning of ‘rightly’. This argument, however, is consistent at least with arguments that intentions are plans, beliefs, or actions with descriptions.

29 Problematising the separation of wars of self-defence from humanitarian interventions is only intended to make sense of right intentions. There are significant differences that may arise in discussions of other features of just war theory, such as just cause and legitimate authority.

30 Wendt, Alexander, ‘The state as person in international theory’, Review of International Studies, 30:2 (2004), pp. 289–316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Gilbert, Margaret, Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000)Google Scholar.

32 May, Larry, The Morality of Groups: Collective Responsibility, Group-Based Harm, and Corporate Rights (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987)Google Scholar; May, Larry, Sharing Responsibility (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

33 McMahan, Jeff, ‘Humanitarian intervention, consent, and proportionality’, ed. N. Ann David, Richard Keshen, and Jeff McMahan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 44–74 Google Scholar.

34 On defining paternalism, see Gert, Bernard and Culver, Charles, ‘Paternalistic behavior’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6:1 (1976), pp. 45–57 Google ScholarPubMed.

35 Pattison, James, ‘Representativeness and humanitarian intervention’, Journal of Social Philosophy, 38:4 (2007), pp. 569–587 Google Scholar; Tesón, Fernando R., Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality (2nd edn, Irvington-on-Hudson: Transnational, 1997), pp. 126–128 Google Scholar.

36 This claim is subject to restrictions related to maturity and sanity. See Gutmann, A., ‘Children, paternalism, and education: a liberal argument’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9:4 (1980), pp. 338–358 Google Scholar; Wikler, Daniel, ‘Paternalism and the mildly retarded’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8:4 (1979), pp. 377–392 Google Scholar.

37 See Husak, D. N., ‘Paternalism and autonomy’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10:1 (1981), pp. 27–46 Google Scholar.

38 Culver, Gert and, ‘Paternalistic behavior’, p. 53 Google Scholar; Gert, Bernard and Culver, Charles, ‘The justification of paternalism’, Ethics, 89:2 (1979), pp. 206–207 Google Scholar.

39 New, Bill, ‘Paternalism and public policy’, Economics and Philosophy, 15:1 (1999), pp. 63–83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 On the problem of the present generation discounting future generations, see Sunstein, Cass R. and Thaler, Richard H., ‘Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron’, The University of Chicago Law Review, 79:4 (2003), pp. 1159–1202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 For an analogous argument in education, see Gutmann, A., ‘Children, paternalism, and education: a liberal argument’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9:4 (1980), pp. 338–358 Google Scholar.

42 Bratman, Michael, Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

43 There are reasons to be suspicious of this moral position as aid workers are then at least partly responsible for resulting harms. Critical discussions are in Leebaw, Bronwyn, ‘The politics of impartial activism: Humanitarianism and human rights’, Perspectives on Politics, 5:2 (2007), pp. 223–239 Google Scholar; Rubenstein, Jennifer Cyd, Between Samaritans and States: The Political Ethics of Humanitarian NGOs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar; Terry, Fiona, Condemned to Repeat?: The Paradox of Humanitarian Action (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), pp. 23–24 Google Scholar; Weiss, Thomas G., ‘Principles, politics, and humanitarian action’, Ethics & International Affairs, 13:1 (1999), pp. 1–22 Google Scholar.