Sticks and Stones: Living with Uncertain Wars

Whose Values? Whose Justice?

This page intentionally left blank 117 The third cluster looks at the question whether the end justifies the means. In “From Just War to Just Intervention” Susan Atwood addresses a problem that has engaged theologians and ethicists since early Christian days. What constitutes the grounds for a just war? She discusses how the Just War Ethic has been used to define the just use of force, and how the Reformation, the birth of the nation-state, and the advent of the nuclear age (to name a few) have forced changes in our interpretation . After World War II, the United Nations became our authority on right intent and just cause. In the 1990s a number of interventions that took place were justified on humanitarian grounds. Now, after 9/11, the debate has changed radically. Can we justify preemptive interventions as “just”? The old Westphalian notion of sovereignty and nonintervention in the internal affairs of a state no longer holds sway. No sovereign state has the right to murder its own citizens. How, then, do we balance the rights of sovereign states in a global world that recognizes the international primacy of human rights? When does oppression reach a point where forceful intervention on humanitarian grounds is justified? Romeo Dalliare is an individual who chose to act—to intervene—in Rwanda. He acted outside of the mandate the United Nations had given him, and he eloquently tells us why. While we admire his personal strength and determination, his heroism will become a historical asterisk unless we find ways to create and fortify institutions that will exemplify such qualities and establish common agreement on their value, that is, on what is proper human behavior in moments of extremity. The challenge of this new global century, Atwood concludes, “is to improve the implementation of humanitarian interventions and to define their mandate, as well as to clarify international human rights law. At a moment in history when, increasingly, even local conflicts have global implications, abandoning the pursuit of justice within or across state borders in an attempt to recapture an illusion of order is not an option.” The Just War Ethic, Atwood asserts, must grow into an ethic of just intervention. The Treaty of Rome established the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1999, which acknowledges the grave human rights issues we face. The court’s specific purpose : to hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes or crimes against humanity, whether they are individuals, governments, heads of state, or members of paramilitary groups. The court has jurisdiction in the territorial state, the state where the crime took place, or the state of nationality of the accused where those states are party to the statute or very significantly have accepted its jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis for that particular case. In addition, the court has jurisdiction over cases referred to it by the 118 WHOSE VALUES? WHOSE JUSTICE? Security Council. In October 2005, 141 countries had signed the treaty, which gave statutory effect to the court. But the United States has not signed, citing reasons of sovereignty. No U.S. citizen will be tried in a foreign country for a war crime. Further, the United States continues to actively campaign to undermine the ICC by signing bilateral treaties with countries who agree not to sign the Rome Treaty in exchange for aid and other goodies. Valerie Epps queries the democratic legitimacy of the court’s claimed jurisdiction over states that are not party to the treaty. The ICC wields governmental authority as a judicial body to prosecute or punish individuals. At issue is the nature of the democratic linkage between this organ of governance and national governments. National states that are party to the treaty have representation through their own state’s consent and through participation in the Assembly of States Parties, the governing body overseeing the court. But Epps argues that there is no democratic basis for the ICC’s power as applied to populations whose states have not consented on their behalf and are not represented in the Assembly of States Parties. Here, Epps says, it would be hard to claim democratic legitimacy for the ICC. Before the ICC can claim a legitimacy that is universally recognized this issue will have to be resolved satisfactorily, a claim the United States actively works to undermine. In its quest for new allies in its war on global...