"Wars do not resolve questions but create further disputes." Does this mean that war can never be justified?

Model Essay

Introduction

War has played a significant historical role in resolving conflicts, with nations resorting to armed conflicts to settle disputes and assert dominance. However, the assertion that wars do not resolve questions but create further disputes raises important questions about the efficacy and ethical implications of armed conflict. This essay argues that while wars can lead to short-term solutions and changes in power dynamics, the long-term consequences of violence and animosity suggest that war should be a last resort and rarely justified. Alternative methods of conflict resolution and diplomacy should be prioritized to prevent the escalation of violence and the perpetuation of deeper hostilities.

The Short-term Impact of Wars

One of the immediate impacts of war is the apparent resolution of specific disputes or territorial claims. Armed conflicts may lead to the conquest of territories or the defeat of opposing forces, providing a sense of victory for the victors. However, such victories are often temporary and fail to address underlying grievances, which can resurface later, leading to further disputes. For instance, the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I imposed harsh conditions on Germany, leading to economic hardships and a sense of humiliation that contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the outbreak of World War II.

Wars can also result in changes in power dynamics, with the emergence of winners and losers. The victorious side may gain influence, resources, and territory, while the defeated side experiences losses and territorial concessions. This redistribution of power may seem like a resolution, but it can sow the seeds of future conflicts. The desire to regain lost territories or resources can fuel further disputes and lead to a cycle of revenge and hostility. For instance, the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and its neighboring Arab states laid the groundwork for ongoing conflicts and territorial disputes in the Middle East.

Creating Further Disputes

While wars may offer short-term solutions, they often leave lasting grievances and hostilities among involved parties. The violence and destruction witnessed during armed conflicts can lead to deep-seated animosities, making it difficult for parties to reconcile and find common ground. For example, the bitter ethnic and religious divisions that emerged during the Bosnian War in the 1990s continue to impact relations in the region, hindering lasting peace and reconciliation efforts.

The impact of war on civilian populations cannot be overlooked. The suffering endured by non-combatant civilians, including loss of lives, displacement, and trauma, creates intergenerational animosity. These experiences can fuel future generations’ perceptions of enmity, perpetuating cycles of violence and disputes for years to come. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a poignant example, where the ongoing conflict and historical grievances have deeply affected generations on both sides.

The Ethical Dilemma of War Justification

The ethical dilemma of war justification lies at the heart of the complex decision to engage in armed conflict. Just war theory, which traces its origins to ancient philosophers such as Cicero and later developed by Christian theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, seeks to establish moral criteria for determining when war is ethically justified. The principles of just war theory include the requirement of a just cause, such as self-defense or humanitarian intervention, proportionality in the use of force, and the assurance of non-combatant immunity. While these principles provide a framework for evaluating the moral legitimacy of war, their application in practice is often fraught with challenges and subject to interpretation.

One major ethical concern is the principle of proportionality. The principle dictates that the harm inflicted during war should not be disproportionate to the anticipated benefits or the legitimate military objective. The use of force should be proportional to the threat faced and should minimize civilian casualties. However, modern warfare often involves technologies with the potential to cause mass destruction, raising questions about the proportionality of certain military actions. For instance, the use of drone strikes has been a subject of debate due to their potential to result in collateral damage and civilian deaths. Additionally, the long-term consequences of armed conflict, such as environmental destruction and the destabilization of societies, may not be fully foreseen at the onset of war. Thus, ensuring proportionality in war becomes increasingly challenging in complex and protracted conflicts.

Another ethical consideration is the risk of civilian harm in armed conflicts. Even with the intention to minimize civilian casualties, the fog of war and the challenges of distinguishing combatants from non-combatants can lead to unintended harm to innocent civilians. The concept of non-combatant immunity emphasizes the need to protect civilians from the direct effects of war. However, in practice, civilians often find themselves caught in the crossfire, facing displacement, injury, or death. The use of indiscriminate weapons or attacks on civilian targets violates the principle of non-combatant immunity and raises profound moral dilemmas. For instance, the targeting of hospitals, schools, and residential areas during conflicts raises concerns about the ethical conduct of warfare. Additionally, the use of child soldiers or human shields further complicates the ethical landscape, as it directly violates the principle of non-combatant immunity and exposes vulnerable populations to immense harm. In such cases, the ethical question of whether the potential benefits of war can ever outweigh the tragic human cost becomes a crucial point of contention in the debate over the justification of armed conflict.

Alternatives to War for Conflict Resolution

Diplomacy and negotiation offer viable alternatives to armed conflict for resolving disputes. Engaging in diplomatic dialogue fosters open communication and understanding among conflicting parties. For example, the Camp David Accords in 1978 led to peace between Israel and Egypt, demonstrating how negotiations can achieve peaceful resolutions even in deeply entrenched conflicts.

International cooperation and mediation efforts are essential in preventing disputes from escalating into armed conflicts. Organizations like the United Nations and regional bodies play a critical role in facilitating dialogue and finding peaceful solutions. The diplomatic efforts to negotiate the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Agreement on climate change exemplify the power of diplomacy in addressing complex global challenges.

Preventing Future Disputes

Addressing the root causes of conflicts is paramount in preventing their recurrence. Inequality, resource scarcity, ideological differences, and political grievances often underlie conflicts. By addressing these fundamental issues and fostering equitable and inclusive societies, the potential for future disputes can be mitigated. For example, initiatives that promote economic development, education, and social justice can contribute to stable and peaceful societies.

Fostering dialogue and understanding among conflicting parties is crucial in preventing future disputes. Interfaith and intercultural dialogue initiatives encourage mutual respect and appreciation for diverse perspectives. The Oslo Peace Accords in the 1990s aimed to create dialogue between Israel and Palestine, emphasizing the need for understanding and trust-building to pave the way for a peaceful resolution.

The Role of International Organizations in Preventing Conflicts and Promoting Peace

International organizations, such as the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, play a critical role in preventing conflicts and promoting peace. The UN Peacekeeping operations have been deployed to various conflict zones to facilitate ceasefires, protect civilians, and support peace negotiations. Furthermore, humanitarian organizations provide aid and assistance to civilians affected by conflicts, alleviating suffering and fostering hope for a peaceful resolution.

The Rare and Justified Use of War

The rare and justified use of war arises when all other avenues for resolving conflicts have been exhausted, and the principles of just war theory align with the specific circumstances. In exploring cases where war may be deemed as a last resort, it becomes evident that the preservation of national sovereignty, self-defense against aggression, or the prevention of imminent and grave humanitarian crises may warrant military action. When diplomacy and peaceful negotiations fail to deter an aggressive state or protect a nation’s sovereignty, self-defense becomes an imperative. For instance, during World War II, the Allies resorted to military action against Nazi Germany to stop the spread of tyranny and atrocities, justifying their actions as a necessary response to the aggression posed by the Axis powers. Similarly, in cases of genocides and mass atrocities, humanitarian intervention may be deemed justified to protect vulnerable populations from egregious human rights violations when their own government or non-state actors are unable or unwilling to provide protection. The 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing is an example of humanitarian intervention that aimed to prevent further atrocities and protect civilians.

In considering the conditions under which self-defense and humanitarian intervention may be justified, the principles of proportionality and adherence to international law are of utmost importance. Proportionality requires that the harm caused by military action should not be excessive compared to the legitimate military objective. It is imperative to assess the potential human and environmental cost of military operations against the expected benefits. This principle places a significant burden on decision-makers to carefully evaluate the consequences of their actions and consider non-military alternatives whenever possible. Moreover, adherence to international law, including humanitarian law and human rights principles, is crucial in justifying military action. The Geneva Conventions and other international treaties set forth rules governing the conduct of warfare, aiming to protect civilians and minimize suffering during armed conflicts. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, adopted by the United Nations in 2005, emphasizes the international community’s obligation to prevent and respond to mass atrocities, providing a framework for justifying humanitarian intervention under specific circumstances. By ensuring strict adherence to international law and the principles of proportionality, the ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of force can be addressed, and military action can be limited to only those situations where there is a clear moral imperative.

Conclusion

The assertion that wars do not resolve questions but create further disputes highlights the importance of considering alternatives to armed conflict for resolving disputes. While wars may offer short-term solutions and changes in power dynamics, the long-term consequences of violence and animosity make war a last resort and rarely justified. Diplomacy, international cooperation, and addressing root causes of conflicts offer viable and more sustainable alternatives to prevent the escalation of violence and foster lasting peace. By seeking peaceful resolutions, societies can move towards building a more inclusive and harmonious world for future generations.