The ontology of where rules of war come from and if they are norms or institutions is deeply subjective in terms of opinion. One can have a different perspective on this depending on their presuppositional beliefs. As a Christian and adherent of the belief that all people are imbued, by the Creator, with a sense of right and wrong, I fall into the natural law camp (Lewis, 1952, 35). Thus, the rules of war are based on a moral system of right and wrong. As human beings, who have a natural inclination towards doing the wrong thing, selfishness serves a purpose. It provides an impetus to act in a more civil and humanitarian fashion with the hope and purpose that the other side behaves reciprocally (Koskenniemi, 2005, 487). Selfishness is empowered by the modern world by the visibility it provides via social media, instant communication, and Virtual Private Networks which allows the recording and transmittal of war crimes and other acts that may be morally dubious to the larger world (Legitimate Targets, 2014).
This standard of right and wrong that determines the rules of war and how a military should conduct themselves can be argued, once again, that the basis for that rule is either a norm or an institution. However, when coming from the Christian faith, one will more traditionally argue that the basis is more institutional — but this is an institution that is outside of the realm of human control or opinion. Natural Law, the ‘institution’ provides a uniform code for all people in all places to have a similar perspective on what is right and wrong. Consider for instance:
A country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to — whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked (Lewis, 1952, 21).
Though this natural law exists and its imperative and claim is upon every person with equal weight, some choose not to abide by this law, even though they know it exists (Lewis, 1952, 24). Thus, to provide this law with teeth, there must be a guarantor who will enforce it. On the domestic front, that is the role of law enforcement, but when it comes to what happens outside of one’s nation, that becomes harder (Koskenniemi, 2005, 495). In order to enforce international law in a global sense, there needs to be a clear delineation of what is right and wrong — such as imprisoning (amongst other horrendous actions) the Uyghur people for peacefully practicing their religion is evil. Once that delineation is made more transparent, there needs to be joint enforcement, or in other words, teeth to the statement. International communities are wonderful at providing flowery written documents that carry no weight. In order to protect repressed and threatened peoples, the state tempted to or engaging in the repression or war crimes must fear the repercussions (Fox, 2014). In the case of China’s repression of the Uyghur peoples, the Free World must work in concert to bring economic and diplomatic pressure to China by ostracizing them completing from the community of nations (similarly to what the Trump Administration did to the Chinese telecommunication giant Huawei). Moreover, the threat of the Free World (plus other nations such as India and Vietnam), for instance, positing a unified front militarily (such as large-scale exercises), would lead rogue states (such as China) to understand that they are a global pariah and their behavior would incur financial, if not physical discomfort. However, accomplishing norms on a global scale requires fortitude and willingness to “speak softly but carry a big stick.” As of yet, international organizations have shown the effectiveness of the League of Nations. When international organizations have been effective, it has only been because the United States and NATO have been the guarantor.
Works Cited:
Fox, Justin. “What Alan Greenspan Has Learned since 2008.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard University, November 2, 2014. https://hbr.org/2014/01/what-alan-greenspan-has-learned-since-2008.
Koskenniemi, Martti. “Chapter 7: Variations of World Order: The Structure of International Legal Argument.” Essay. In From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, 474–512. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Legitimate Targets | Inside the Issues 5.7. YouTube. Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb_F0iEe_mc&feature=emb_title.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. London: The Garden City Press Ltd , 1952.
Discussion Board answer for my Master of Arts in National Security Studies
