Comment Paper 5

                The Finkelstein, Ohlin, and Altman reading discussed three different interpretations of just war theory: Individualism, Collectivism, and Contractualism.  While these interpretations discuss the justification of combatants fighting against each other, they do not deeply discuss the targeting of civilians in warfare.  While all interpretations justify killing to eliminate a perceived unjust threat, they only acknowledge that combatants should be targeted, and gloss over the fact that many non-combatants are involved in the war-fighting effort.

                Individualism argues that the killing in warfare is the result of individuals facing threats from other individuals.  Soldiers are justified in killing because they are acting in self-defense.  Therefore, according to the authors, civilians should not be targeted because they do not pose a direct threat to the individual soldier.  Collectivism takes this notion even further and states that individual soldiers are part of a collective society.  Therefore, if the collective faces a threat, then it is the individual soldier’s responsibility to represent his collective and to eliminate the threats posed by the representatives of the other collective.  In this interpretation, civilians should not be targeted because they do not represent the collective and therefore do not pose a threat.  Lastly, Contractualism suggests that soldiers forfeit their right to life when going to war, but it is in the best interest of all belligerents to limit the human cost as much as possible.  Again, civilians should not be targeted due to the supposed in bello contract between states. 

                The interpretations of just war theory all argue that killing is moral when eliminating perceived unjust threats.  Individual enemy combatants pose the threat to the fullest extent because they carry out the attacks.  However, the absolute determination that combatants pose a threat and civilians do not is an oversimplification of a complicated matter.  While combatants pose the largest threat, civilians that can influence a side’s war-fighting capability can pose indirect threats as well.  Therefore, if a state goes to war against another state for a just reason, should the state that is attempting to eliminate the unjust threat be allowed to target those who pose indirect threats as well?  For example, assuming that the allied nations in World War II were at war for a just cause, can the strategic bombing  of German and Japanese industrial centers be in accordance with jus in bello?   

                My issue with the interpretations is that they attempt to describe legitimate targets in an objective manner when in reality the perceived threats that each individual target may pose is entirely subjective.  Even the definition of “combatant” is subjective.  Does this include all members of an opposing military or only the ones who are shooting at you?  Therefore, when discussing jus in bello, the best way for belligerents to act “morally” is not by letting the distinction of “combatant” or “non-combatant” determine whether a target is legitimate.  Rather, targets should be deemed legitimate if their elimination would potentially reduce the number of lives taken by an unjust threat.  Additionally, the aggressive actions of the “just” state should not be excessive, but enough to curtail the threats posed by the “unjust” enemy.  However, these two criteria are also subjective to individual interpretation.  Therefore, there can never be a unanimous understanding of who can be targeted and in what way.