Political Compass #6: Justifying illegal military action.

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were. I will also suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation.

It might also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them.

(The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.)

*Proposition #6: * Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Agree.
Ow, this proposition gives me a headache. I really really want to Strongly Disagree and hold that nations must must must settle their differences legally. However I’m afraid that, at the end of the day, international law is just not yet such that it permits all military action I feel is justified and forbids all action I feel is not. And so, even though I know it will give me a nudge towards authoritarianism because I’m lumped with those who believe that their country or group should simply act in its own interests and do “what it can get away with”, I reluctantly Agree.

[Tinfoil hat: ON]
Conservative bias!
[Tinfoil hat: OFF]

My caveat is that such action can only be countenanced when the justification is solely humanitarian. Currently, international law recognises military action if [ul][li]A state is acting in self defence against an armed attack.[/li][li] Said military action is explicitly authorised by a UN Security Council vote (vetoes and all).[/ul] Unfortunately, international law still requires UNSC permission to intervene even when eg. clear evidence of ongoing genocide is presented by independent UN experts. (The NATO action against Serbia was, strictly, still in defiance of international law even after the Racak massacre was investigated by a Finnish UN team.) And, what with all the distasteful alliances between veto-holding UNSC members and regimes which continually find themselves being condemned by the UN, it is often altogether too difficult and time-consuming to legalise the required military action in time to save lives. So, I speak here solely of humanitarian action during a time-sensitive crisis.[/li]
Now, we all know that there has been an unauthorised military action recently where the situation had not changed for many years and the humanitarian aspect was dubious, or at least no more pressing than in other places in the world. An imminent “threat” was proposed in order to justify military action in self defence, but attempts to verify that threat were deemed irrelevant. While I personally might have advocated simple “regime change” for humanitarian reasons, I’m afraid that actions like this set such a dangerous precedent that we must be as certain as reasonably possible that they will do more good than harm. The justification for intervention must be crystal clear and supported by genuine independent evidence if we are to embark on so radical a course.

And so, I believe that humanitarian regime change without evidence of a serious, ongoing and time-sensitive crisis must still be subject to UNSC authorisation. Conversely, if evidence of eg. a genocide is presented by UN experts, I believe no such authorisation should be explicitly required, as in the case of self defence. I would like this to be somehow written into international law with the necessary provisos and balances to ensure abuses are minimal. (While I’m at it, I’ll add abolition of the dreaded veto to my wish list as well.)

But, as of right now, international law is such that I believe that there are real and hypothetical scenarios wherein military action defying it are justified. I believe Kosovo and Rwanda were justified (and perhaps Afghanistan by stretching “armed attack”), but Iraq was not. All were, strictly, in breach of international law.

Economic -7.38 Social -7.79, ticked strongly agree

I don’t feel the law at any jurisdictional level is such that it can be used as a reliable guide for just behaviour. It would be grand if the law was and it’s a worthy goal to make it so but we’re still a long way from attaining that goal. The laws we have and, more importantly, the processes we use use to develop them are so deeply flawed that I see little correlation between the law and justice or morality.

In particular, international law, as it stands, is often used as a convenient scapegoat for apathetic and cynical regional and superpowers to take no action in times of humanitarian crisis. It’s usually only a supplementary objection to taking a justified course of military action but, nonetheless, is still another way our governments let themselves off the hook.

However, I agree with your caveat. The Bush administration constantly warned of looming irrelevance for the UN in the lead up to the invasion and there was some (surely unintended) truth in this. The administration claimed it was because the UN refused to tow the line whilst I believe it’s the use of the veto that gives the UN less authority. If we can’t get rid of that fucking veto then at the very least we should make verifiable charges of genocide and the necessary military action to counter it immune to what is effectively a veto.

(-2, -3.28) Agree. Can’t help but notice that in this case, the question is worded with a “sometimes”, with what those times are left up to the reader.

You’ve got to leave wriggle room. In fact, there are several propositions that similarly hedge, sometimes using sometimes too. Too many propositions asserting absolutes will tend to have too many unanimous responses and that would make the exercise useless at least for rational, thoughtful people. A bit of equivocating makes the test more useful as far as a rational, thoughtful readership.

Far from implying you are irrational or thoughtless though, especially since your posts don’t indicate that. I understand your point but I feel this gives the more meaningful results.

Define “international law”. The UN doesn’t have a good enough track record such that we can define it as “whatever the US says”. That seems to be implicit in what has been posted so far. And even if the UN did have a great track record, there’s nothing to say that it would stay that way.

I can’t see that international law exists excpet in as much as a country chooses to accept it. What it really boils down to is how much international acrimony a country is willing to withstand.

Strongly agree.

All I need to do to come up with a decision on this is to imagine a scenario where I would be in favor of a military action that defies whatever people choose to believe is “international law”. It’s easy to picture such a scenario.

Let’s say that genocide is occuring in a country and the UN (or whatever other ‘international law’ happens to exist at the time) decides not to act. I would be in favor of the US taking military action.

This meets the “sometimes” requirement, so I agree.

I choose “strongly” agree because I have very little faith in the ability and motives of the UN. However, even if the UN was an organization that I thought was effective I would still agree.

International law comprises all treaties adopted by a given state or organisation at a given time, as codified by the 1969 Vienna Convention. If the actions of a state violate a treaty to which it is a signatory, it is said to be in breach of international law. When I say that “international law is not good enough”, I mean that the treaties in force (eg. the UN Charter) are inadequate and require amendment.

The UN is its member states. If its most powerful member disregards the treaties it has signed, then the “ineffectiveness of the UN” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I’m pretty sure noone else here has implied such a thing. Do you seriously mean that the UN’s track record will only be good enough when it takes the position of “whatever the US says”?

Such frankness is refreshing.

I think that was a typo, Gest.

Well, I Disagree with the proposition. (+0.75, -5)

I find the notion of “legal” or “illegal” highly problematic here. To pick on the OP, it simply is NOT clear whether the Kosovo war was illegal, because the Charter of the United Nations does not actually state that UNSC approval is necessary for a war. What it says is:

  • that the UNSC has “primary responsibility” for peace and security (Article 23)
  • that member nations will carry out the decisions of the UNSC (art. 25)
  • that the UNSC shall make determinations and recommendations to the UN with respect to security (art. 39)
  • that the UNSC may take military action to restore security and peace (art. 42)

The Charter makes the UNSC the military authority for the United Nations. It does not specifically say that other agencies can’t take action to restore peace and security if need be. Since the UNSC did not forbid or condemn the Kosovo action - no chance that would happen, of course - the action was not “strictly” illegal. Kosovo was not clearly “illegal,” and invasion of Rwanda wouldn’t have been, either. Invasion of Afghanistan was, I thought everyone agreed, quite obviously legal as an act of self-defense. A state unable to control bandits or pirates operating from its territory and thus presenting a security risk to other states forfeits its right to sovereignty insofar as it is necessary to stop them.

An example of an unjutified and illegal war in a spoilers box in case you want to avoid partisan bitching:

By comparison, the invasion of Iraq was, to my eyes, quite illegal; it was an aggressive act, the country invaded was not presenting a security risk to any other country, had not collapsed to the point of the complete breakdown of the state and its social order, and had not committed an act of war that should have elicited a full scale invasion as a response. Perhaps there was a time-sensitive human rights issue but at this point it’s hard to separate the chaff from the wheat on what was happening in Iraq in February 2003. Even leaving the UN out of it, I don’t know what precedent could be used for justifying that war. It is telling that those who started the war felt it necessary to lie about their reasons for going to war, and to trump up charges of Iraq creating a security risk in order to justify war.

If you are proceeding on the assumption that “International Law” is the United Nations choosing or not choosing to fight, I can see why you’d agree. But that’s just not what international law is, in any realistic sense. To my mind, “international law” is not just the United Nations, but is rather a large set of customs and accepted precedents, including not just the UN but the Treaty of Westphalia, the Law of the Sea, and others. Going strictly by the wording of the UN Charter, other treaties, and legal precedent, I can’t think of any justifiable wars that were not either legal or, at worse, legally unclear. I cannot think, offhand, of any justifiable military actions that were clearly illegal, IMHO. And so I must Disagree with the proposition. I won’t strongly disagree because there may be some isolated circumstances I’m forgetting, but I can’t think of many.

Sentientmeat, isn’t that interesting? Here you are on the authoritarian side, and I’m not.

Heh heh, quite so RickJay! I hoped we might come across such fascinating ironies when I started this whole endeavour.
Perhaps I am merely bemoaning my belief that the whole legality regarding military action is simply not clear enough. The UN Charter, or indeed any other treaty governing international military action, should be amended so that there is no question what is and is not outwith its bounds. As fellow legal professionals, I hope you can understand my gripe!

Yes, a typo. It was supposed to be “whatever the UN says”, esp. the UNSC. Sorry.

Strongly Disagree. I can’t hope to improve on what Rick Jay said so I won’t try.

The major problem for me with the (false) notion of ‘international law’ is that it has credibility with the general population by virtue of its title; it sounds like it’s above board and spiffing when, in fact, it’s the last refuge of the international scoundrel – justify what you do with a SC Resolution and no democratic electorate will hold what you against you.

In reality a UN Resolution is the product of self-interests/horse-trading (with other permanent members) and bribery (of whoever is on the rest of the SC at any given moment).

Yet, throw it in the general direction of yer placard-waving liberal mob and they’ll bow down at your feet for showing them their beloved moral high ground.

International Law in the form of SNSC Resolutions is white mans’ law; in fact it’s white mans’, Christian, western, first-world capitalist law utilised specifically to make their comfortable, lazy, woolly-thinking electorate feel good about conquest and world domination.

And, as such, it’s dangerous. Obviously.

Furthermore, in any ‘real’ legal environment, anyone against whom a case can be made should be indicted and the outline facts examined by an independent court with authority; Bush and Blair contrived the pretext of WMD and – even if it can’t be proven – they would have to be indicted on war crimes charges for any international legal framework to have credibility. They haven’t been because they’re also part of the judgement-making framework.

So where’s the moral high ground now for those liberals so keen to support ‘international’ law in general and the second UN Resolution in particular?

Fiannly, I can’t help but feel the world would be a lot saner if we in the West accepted that we do what we do to further our own self-interests at the expence of the undeveloped world; in short, accept that we’re a bunch of cunts shafting everyone we can in order to make our lives more comfortable at their expense.

All this delusional liberal bullshit does far more harm than good and it just plays into the open arms of the right. Ergo Iraq – get a fucking grip you ethical banking, fair frade fools.

</end of rant>

I know you put IMHO at the end, but aren’t those statements largely subjective, and so pretty much meaningless? One man’s justification is another man’s lame excuse. To be fair, you listed a set of treaties and customs that can be relied upon to add some objectivity, but don’t all these treaties typically have wiggle room in them? And lacking any actual legal system in which to enforce international law, how can it, in a strictly legal sense, be said to exist?

Look at the Afghanistan situation. You say it is justified, but couldn’t the same case be made about Pakistan right now?

1 and -.1.54 last time I took the test. I marked ‘strongly disagree’. Legal or illgegal doesn’t necessarily coincide with right or wrong. I’m not a fan of the UN, nor do I like some of its agendas anyway.

My god, London_Calling…for me you hit the nail right on the head as far as this issue goes. Its the point I was trying to get across in the myriad “was the war in Iraq illegal” threads. Now, I don’t know if you were being serious or just sarcastic in your post, but for me thats exactly as I see it.

As far as the charter goes, pre-emptive military action is only ‘authorized’ if a nation is under threat (I’m going on memory of the Charter, so don’t have the exact sections…I THINK it was section 41, 42 and 50 that defined this). So, by that light all of the invasions listed WERE technically illegal (with the possible exception the US attacks in Afghanistan). NATO wasn’t under threat from Kosovo. The US wasn’t under threat of attack from Iraq. Notice that in neither case was there any condemation of either party by the UN though. In neither case did the UN “forbid or condemn”.

As far as the humanitarian aspects…well, who decides that? Who decides if a humanitarian intervention is necessary and more important justified? NATO decided in the Kosovo affair, but did so without UNSC approval. The US decided in the Iraq case, again without UNSC approval. I think most people would be willing to see that the NATO intervention in Kosovo was justified while the US intervention in Iraq was not, but the problem is that in both situations a nation or nations took that decision on themself and acted on their own…and continued to establish a precident for doing so in the future. And in both cases the UN showed how weak it was by NOT acting, either to approve or condemn those that acted.

If you are in the ‘club’ of world nations you pretty much do what you want to do, even when its unpopular with the rest of the world. All you have to do is be able to put up with the negative flack from other countries for a time and you can ride it out. There is a definite dual standard out there of world nations, and IMO it makes the mere idea of ‘internation law’ a farce, something to be used by the powerful nations as a club as well as a shield…to club the less fortunate nations over the head when they step out of line or break the rules, a shield to give themselves ‘moral justification’ when they choose to act themselves.

-XT

I’m serious. I’m so tired of the delusional bullshit that characterises the entire breadth of the western political spectrum, especially the US/UK alliance – at least some of Old Europe is at least genuinely informed on international issues.

So, imho, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, we’re all wrong because we’re not actually looking at the right fucking canvas e.g. the debate itself is shaped by vested interests and unless/until that is addressed – and we start looking at the real picture – all this is just so much wasted, smug, comfort-zoning delusion.

Fwiw, the only credible position I see is that of the neocons who at least have a degree of honesty in their Imperial actions. And that’s just a little beyond sad.

And all the while we continue to rape the developing world of everything from its resources to its independence to its self-respect and blame ‘terrorists’ for not laying down and accepting Whitey’s Law and opening its arms, legs and arse to Whitey’s so-called ‘free market religion.

Onward Capitalist soldiers
Marching as to war
With the cross of Jesus
Deluding you as before

Sorry, back to your regular 2,000-year old programming.

Well, don’t blame me, I didn’t write the proposition. My argument here is that I cannot think of a situation where a war would be justified if it was CLEARLY illegal. I totally agree that you can argue about almost any way, but I think you will agree that some wars are most definitely ILLEGAL. I can think of a bunch off the top of my head:

  1. Any number of German invasions
  2. The USSR’s attack on Finland in 1939-1940
  3. Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands
  4. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait
  5. The Communist invasion of South Korea

The sum total of international law and treaties on the subject of aggression is a pretty nebulous target, but to my mind the intent is pretty clear, and can be summed up in seven basic principles:

  1. Don’t start wars without a good reason.
  2. Defending your country against aggression is a very good reason. Defending other countries against aggression is also a good reason.
  3. Stepping in to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe when a state is incapable of governing itself, or if the catastrophe is itself a security threat, that’s a good reason, too.
  4. The response should be proportional to the threat.

The UN Charter may be written as weasel words, but I’m not certain that was unintentional. The law is not supposed to be a suicide pact. No state run by anyone smarter than Pakleds is going to sign a treaty in good faith that would prevent them from defending themselves.

To my mind, the Kosovo intervention passes this test. I’m unconvinced that NATO followed the rules on the CONDUCT of the war - we quite intentionally attacked civilian targets. But for STARTING the war, it passed muster on #3, IMHO. I cannot think of a war I could support that does not pass this test.

But then, I’m real slow to call for war. It’s supposed to be a measure of last resort.

I’ll also take this rare opportunity to agree with London Calling. International law seems too often to boil down to 'might makes right, as long as might is on our side". The UN is certainly necessary, but it’s still far too open, for example, to bullying by the US (as the sole superpower now) or pandering to any number of tin-pot dictatorial regimes.

RickJay: You didn’t answer my question about Pakistan. Is the situation there now really all that different from Afghanistan in terms of being “a state unable to control bandits or pirates operating from its territory”? If you’re uncomfortable with that characterization of the country as a whole, how about the so-called “tribal areas”? Wouldn’t the same justification of the US invasion of Afghanistan be valid for an invasion of those areas?