Moral Use of Force - Essay Example

Moral Use of Force Brief reconstruction From Jus ad Bellum to Jus ad Vim: Recalibrating our Understanding of the Moral use of Force is a text that evaluates the very questions regarding the foreign formulations in the global continuum in which war remains the prevalent subject of ethical and moral concern (Brunstetter & Braun, 2013). In this text, the authors, Brunstetter, and Braun, evaluate the topic from a contextual approach, measuring the reflection of the article as Michael Walzer wrote in the preface of the edition on Just and Unjust Wars. The significance of evaluating the moral conceptualization of the topic relating to the confines of the international engagements and relations is evident in the eventual impact that relates to the moral and ethical factors as they impact the various systems, legal, political and moral. The recent developments in the continuum of war including the imposition of short war, entailing no-fly in zonal restrictions and development of pinpoint missile strikes as well as, CIA operations all constitute a relatively morally and ethically arousing issue for debate, as the text in this reflection outlines (Brunstetter & Braun, 2013). The authors, Brunstetter and Braun, present the discussion distinguishing the factors of use of force in war and the development of drones and evidential use of the same in engaging the enemy, as issues of morality and ethics (Brunstetter & Braun, 2013). The question is thus, is there oral justification of use of force in war. Analysis of the issue Identify the issue The authors, Brunstetter and Braun, in this article make the recount of the position that war is vast and as such, Walzer did distinguish the aspect that the recent war approaches, entailing unjust war where use of drones and spying aspects of practice, are not as predictable in outcome as the full scale attack which entails use of force. However, the course of discussion in the text is the issue that irrespective of the rising models of war not having predictable catastrophic consequences, the fact remains they are unjust and such are morally illegal, despite the states men using these arguments of their safety to justify and endorse them accordingly. The coarse as advanced in Jus ad Vim the issue of just use of force is notably a course of ethical framework to govern the state sponsored use of force against other states or non state actors within and outside the territory of the nation, which is contrary to the traditionally defined confines of war (Brunstetter & Braun, 2013). Moral, legal and political aspects of the issue The political approach of the argument with respect to the understanding of this issue, as the authors of this article outline, it is a justifiable course. This is considering the implications it has on part of the government and the troops involved in the war. Notably, this political factor entails that the use of Jus ad Vim unlike the conventional war, brings the troops diminished risks especially from suffering attack that could prove destructive. Further, the aspect of advancing this war is less predictable and bears more outcomes, as well as, curtails the civilian risk entailed (Brunstetter & Braun, 2013). Moreover, the economic and military burden entailed is lessened, a course of argument that the political sphere justify the course of Jus ad Vim with, compared to conventional warfare. Thus, politically, it is binding approach and more responsible. From the understanding of the legal and moral sphere, it is notable that the authors reflect accordingly the notion entailed in legal and moral description of the issue. The line of though in moral and legal systems entails that there is no difference between war ad force and as such, address the issue as Jus ad Bellum which implies that use of force or not use of force in war, all has the same implication (Brunstetter & Braun, 2013). This assumption in constructive reasoning is not warranted. Nonetheless, the legal and moral aspects entailed in this issue designate the advancement of the thought that indeed, use of this model of war, entailing drones and guided missile strikes among others, is not a conventional and defined model of war. As such, the moral and legal spheres without discerning the entity of economics of the scale of war all differ, implying the need to engage the issue from Jus ad Bellum. Therefore, in reflection of the entity as entailed in the moral spheres of all stakeholders, the consequence of the use of force in war is evident in the consequences resulting in the event of the strike. Further, from the ethical spheres, it is notable the socio-politics of nations and regional groups as well as global systems are all under a systematic legal binding that requires a standard code of engagement, which gives the parties entailed in a conflict the space to defend their course (Graham, 2008). However, with respect to the use of force, from the social-political entities entailing the global level of relation, it is notable that the development and advancement of less use of force is preferable considering the politics aspect will consider the implications of all other entities. Further, in evaluating the social-cultural and economic perspectives, the advancement of the just course of war with less use of force, compared to the convention traditional war, the amount of suffering and destruction entailed, as well as, the economic losses considered in this context, the issue gains significant positive preference. Additionally, the human being perspective, as well as, citizen levels defines the person as a morally and ethically bound entity, from legal confines and social norms (Graham, 2008). As such, afflictions of war are undesirable particularly when there is use of force. As such, in this reflection of the issue, the use of force is defeated, even in the event of war, Jus ad Bellum gains support from the individual level, as well as, the social groups entailing communities and global confines. Reflecting morally, ethics define less use of force in engaging other state or non-state entities. Thus, Jus ad Bellum defeats the course of Jus ad Vim. Normative evaluation of the moral legal and political levels In my understanding of the issue relating use of force in the course of war or in event of the engagement among nations or non-state entities, the moral and legal perspectives hold. Notably, the entities entailed in the war reflect unpredictable and adverse consequences, from the traditional conventions of war. The moral and legal confines advance the course that Jus ad Bellum holds the course towards eliminating the use of war. In my understanding of this argument and the stance thereof, the conclusion of the issue would simply reflect that there is not moral or legal justification for the use of force in war. These levels of reflection show that indeed, war only is course advanced through force and as such, adopting less forceful means of winning war is better than entire implication entailed in use of force. However, the political wing is convincing that justification of force in war is essential in varied aspect of war. Advancing the course for Jus ad Vim remains a course from political perspective, which enables the diminishing effect of the threat. Thus, in these aspects, Jus ad Vim (the just use of force) is evidently a strong argument. Nonetheless, I relate to the ideology entailed in Jus ad Bellum. Normative evaluation of the individual group and system levels Further, the reflection of the stances as taken from individual and group systems is a course that advances the argument for Jus ad Bellum as the social context advances the thought that diplomatic addressing of conflicts is the preferable option. Therefore, in this aspect, the individual and group levels have the stance in which I relate positively, in effect illustrating the significant engagement of less use of force. The just use of force as justified in the systems theory with respect to engaging either the state or non-state entities such as terror groups requires the advancement of use of force. Thus, in this aspect, it is normal to elate that Jus ad Vim is applicable thought. Conclusion Therefore, in reflection of the entire course of this line of thought regarding the justification of the Jus ad Vim against Jus ad Bellum, the argument of moral use of force is in effect challenged. The confines of the vast systems and groups in relation to justifying force in war, the conclusion is that there is no moral justification of force in war. Political systems justify the use of force. However, the moral and legal perspectives in my judgment do not justify the use of force as such, I concur with this advancing thought. References Brunstetter, D., & Braun, M. (2013). From Jus ad Bellum to Jus ad Vim: Recalibrating Our Understanding of the Moral Use of Force. Ethics & International Affairs (Cambridge University Press), 27(1), 87-106. doi:10.1017/S0892679412000792 Graham, G. (2008). Ethics and international relations. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Read More