Friday, June 3rd, 10.45 – 13.00, at Università di Verona, Room 1.1
Abstract:
Over the centuries, the tradition of just war theory has always tried to provide justifications that could authorize and, at the same time, contain the use of violence. Despite its numerous variations, the main purpose of this theory was to assure both the elaboration and the permanence of precise limits for waging wars. In other words, it set the rules of jus ad bellum (that is the legitimacy of a war, the causes for declaring it) and the rules of jus in bello (that is the legality of a war, the specific modalities for carrying it out).
Throughout the XX century, the constraints imposed by this tradition were progressively abandoned: the war assumed unprecedented forms; the distinction between noncombatants and combatants, between the space/time for peace and the space/time for war, was more and more infringed; a brand-new vocabulary was shaped, referring to expressions such as “collateral damage”, “humanitarian war”, “exporting rights”.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the necessity of a deep and careful re-consideration of issues about war became even more urgent. Many different opinions were developed within the American debate, but it is easy enough to believe that the views of Noam Chomsky and of Michael Walzer have particularly shown their distinctive strength and significance. Chomsky questioned the old and violent hegemonic project of the United States, and the new excuses produced in the occasion of the wars against Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). On the other hand, Walzer is one of the main protagonists of the recent attempt to legitimize and elaborate once again the doctrine of just war.
The main questions we could raise within that recent re-elaboration of the theory certainly concern its political effects: the original frame has been largely altered and weakened, especially the restrictive structure of the old theory. How can preventive war and other aggressive and unilateral acts (often state-sponsored) be considered as morally justifiable? Furthermore, the peculiarity of recent wars has too often been ignored, as well as their radical asymmetry, based on the use of technologically advanced weapons by the western countries and on their control of air force. Such a difference has produced a serious inequality concerning the number of casualties and the concrete chances of winning. That being stated, can we still consider casualties to be merely collateral, justifiable and unintentional damages?
