By Keith Preston, October 2, 2024
Just War Theory, developed primarily by early Christian theologians such as Augustine of Hippo (4th-5th centuries) and later refined by Thomas Aquinas (13th century), outlines ethical guidelines for the use of force. It is based on two main principles: jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (the right conduct in war). Jus ad bellum includes criteria such as a just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality. Jus in bello emphasizes the principles of proportionality in the use of force and discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. Just War Theory evolved as a means to balance the moral imperatives of protecting innocent life and maintaining peace while acknowledging that, in some situations, war may be necessary to achieve justice or defend against aggression. Over time, the theory has influenced both moral philosophy and international law, including the development of the Geneva Conventions and other laws of armed conflict.
In the 17th century, Hugo Grotius argued that states have a right to intervene in the affairs of others to prevent serious human rights abuses, such as atrocities against innocent civilians. In the 19th, John Stuart Mill supported the principle of non-intervention in most cases but made exceptions for instances where gross human rights abuses occurred. He argued that intervention was justifiable in cases where it could lead to the self-determination of oppressed peoples or prevent extreme suffering.
A problem with humanitarian interventionism is that states are, by nature, anti-humanitarian organizations whose first purpose is to maximize their own power. Usually, when claims of humanitarian intervention are invoked, such claims are merely a smokescreen for expansionism or imperialism by particular states (see our present-day “humanitarian hawks” like Samantha Power). However, there may be rare cases when such interventions have a net effect of advancing humanitarian aims.
The most obvious example, and the one Chomsky often cited, would be Vietnam’s dislodging of the Khmer Rouge in 1979.
Other examples might include:
Intervention in the Greek War of Independence (1827): Britain, France, and Russia intervened militarily to defeat Ottoman-Egyptian forces, preventing further massacres and aiding Greek independence.
French Intervention in the Levant (1860): France intervened to stop violence between Druze and Maronite Christians in the Ottoman Empire, ending massacres against the Christian population.
Intervention in Bulgaria (1877-1878): Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire to end widespread atrocities against Bulgarian civilians, resulting in Bulgaria’s autonomy.
Liberation of Nazi Concentration Camps (1944-1945): Soviet, U.S., British, and French forces liberated Nazi concentration camps across Europe, ending the Holocaust’s atrocities.
Indian Intervention in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) (1971): India intervened to stop mass killings by the Pakistani military, leading to Bangladesh’s independence.
Vietnam’s Intervention in Cambodia (1978-1979): Vietnam invaded Cambodia, overthrowing the Khmer Rouge regime and stopping the genocide.
Tanzania’s Intervention in Uganda (1978-1979): Tanzania intervened to overthrow Idi Amin, ending his brutal regime’s human rights violations and massacres.
ECOMOG’s Intervention in Liberia (1990): ECOWAS deployed a peacekeeping force to stabilize Liberia during its civil war and prevent further mass killings.
The Kurdish Safe Haven in Iraq (1991): The U.S., UK, and France established a no-fly zone to protect Kurds from attacks by Saddam Hussein’s forces after the Gulf War.
Somalia (1992-1993): The U.S.-led “Operation Restore Hope” aimed to secure humanitarian aid and restore order during Somalia’s civil war and famine.
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995): NATO intervened with airstrikes to stop ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian War, leading to the Dayton Accords.
Rwanda (1994): France launched Opération Turquoise to create safe zones amid the Rwandan Genocide, although it faced controversy over its role.
Kosovo (1999): NATO conducted a bombing campaign against Yugoslav forces to halt human rights abuses against ethnic Albanians, resulting in Kosovo’s UN administration.
East Timor (1999): An Australian-led force intervened to stop violence by pro-Indonesian militias after East Timor’s independence referendum.
Sierra Leone (2000): The UK intervened to support peacekeeping efforts and stop atrocities by the RUF during the civil war.
UN and French Intervention in Côte d’Ivoire (2011): The UN and France intervened to end post-election violence, helping stabilize the country.
Libya (2011): NATO intervened to protect civilians during the Arab Spring, toppling Gaddafi but leading to ongoing conflict.
French Intervention in Mali (2013): France launched “Operation Serval” to stop Islamist militants from taking over Mali, helping recapture key areas.
French-African Union Intervention in the Central African Republic (2013-present): France and the African Union intervened to restore security amidst sectarian violence between Séléka and anti-Balaka forces.
Some of these examples are questionable, and it can be debated as to whether such actions were net positives, but at least some of them likely were. Iran’s interventionist response to the massacres in Palestine and Lebanon may well turn out to be another example of a net positive, thought that remains to be seen.
