Since December of 2010, Egypt has been embroiled in political turmoil. Referred to as the Arab Spring, it was a massive upheaval of oppressive rulers and dictators beginning in Tunisia. The political dissension is a major international issue. One ruler was forced to resign and placed on house arrest, the next elected leader governed for a year and was deposed. While Egypt’s government is under Military control, the world is anxiously wondering how long will this discord last and whether or not this crisis will lead to a brutal civil war. This analysis will define the just war theory and then apply this theory to the upheaval in Egypt.
The just war theory is a doctrine of military ethics that has its roots in Roman philosophy. Over hundreds of years of debate and consideration has fine tuned into what we now accept as a set of guidelines used by society to discuss the idea of war. War is never pretty. That should be understood. These guidelines though are there to make it tolerable. It should also be stated that the primary focus will be jus ad bellum (Latin for “right to war”). The just war theory rests on these predominant principles: just cause, competent authority, last resort, and proportionality.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Egypt: Will a War be Justified?".
Just cause is often used with the phrase right intention. A country seeking to go to war must be going because it is right and just. The issue that many have is if one side is just, then logically one side is unjust. Better stated, one side has to be right so therefore the other side is wrong. It is great when the lines are black and white, which they seldom are. The war must be defensive in nature. To use our law of self-defense. If you are in imminent danger, you are well within your rights to defend yourself. The product of a war should be progress not punishment. Military action must be in direct response to the established term of aggression, clear and easily demonstrable. It also must be clearly current. Past aggressions are an invalid justification for war. It then becomes a matter of competent authority.
A competent authority is probably the most important tenet of the just war theory. The doctrine defines a competent authority as one with the ability and authority to wage war. It becomes even more important when one realizes that it takes a competent authority to actually be clear and direct about what just cause is. In America, the President is not the only competent authority. Technically it takes an act of Congress to wage a war. A competent authority bares the responsibilty (fair or unfairly) of the scope and outcome of the war. That is a major reason why war must be a last resort.
In the just war theory, the last resort can often be the trickiest tenet to fulfill. The just war doctrine states that war must be the last resort after all other means of satisfying a conflict have been attempted. This means that all viable peaceful alternatives must be exhausted. This includes any identifiable ploys by the opposition to utilize stalling measures and outright lies. For example, Hitler asked Stalin to remain out of the war, then he marched into Poland. An outright lie, and in hindsight, a stalling measure since it is now known that Hitler’s intent was world domination. If the tenets just cause, competent authority, and last resort are fulfilled, then the response of the intended war must have proportionality in the context of the aggression raised.
Proportionality actually places itself along the boundary between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum was previously discussed. Jus in bello is the governing of the war. To satisfy the tenet of proportionality in jus ad bellum, the act of war must not produce anything beyond the expected harms that come from the act of waging war. Proportionality though is an important part of jus in bello. A country’s war effort should only be directed against its military complex. There should be every precaution taken to limit or completely eliminate civilian casualties. Ideally, a military versus a military.
Egypt’s political uprisings were the product of what is now called the Arab Spring. It began in Tunisia and quickly spread. Hosni Mubarak was president from the time of Sadat’s murder in 1981 until he resigned (with a lot of pressure) in 2011. Mubarak a National Democratic Party was a liberal ruler, especially in Muslim thought. He was a protector of the Christian and Jewish minority in Egypt. He sent troops to aid in the liberation of Kuwait and brokered a treaty with the Israelis. Egyptians had room to complain. Egypt was receiving aid that was said to have never reached the people. Caught in the wind of the Arab Spring, the people began to express unhappiness which led to his demise. Elections were held and the Muslim Brotherhood Party’s Candidate, Mohamed Morsi. Morsi, an Islamic Extremist, began undoing many of the more liberal policies of Mubarak He lasted a year and was deposed. Egypt, closer and closer to a civil war is being loosely held together by the Military. Is there a just war waiting?
If Egypt were to enter into war today, the Military Controlled government, a plausible extension of the National Democratic Party, unfortunately would not meet all the conditions of a just war. Technically there is not just cause. With the election of Morsi, the groups protected by Mubarak were no longer protected, but there was not uncontrolled discrimination. For example, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, aimed his fight against political dissenters. He was not polite or indiscriminate. He attempted to kill all Shiites, his political opponents. Last resort would be met. Mubarak resigned (albeit under duress), Morsi was elected and deposed, and now the Military is controlling the government until there another election. If we trust that they are telling the truth, and we must until we are proven otherwise, then they have exhausted all possible measures and war is the last resort. Proportionality. Since the Military, as the controller of the government currently has shown itself to be as fair as possible, a war would probably be fought with a fair degree of proportionality. As much as I wanted to see it as an extension of our own Civil War, it would not be judged as the American Civil War and deemed a just war. If you would like to know if I would still wage a war, the answer is a firm “no comment”.
- An Encyclopedia of War and Ethics. 10th ed. 1996. 12-34. Print.
Grayling, A.C. Ideas that Matter: the Concepts that shape the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books, 2010. . Print. - Hauser, Marc D. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: Harper Collins, 2006. Print.
- Kraut, Richard. What is Good and Why: The Ethics of Well Being. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.Print.
- Temes, Peter S. The Just War: An American Reflection on the Morality of War in Our Time. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. Print.
