Writer: Brigadier Sohail Nasir Khan, retired

Few activities raise as many ethical questions as the activity of war, and their relevance to the contemporary concept of hybrid warfare seems to substantially complicate the predicament of fighting a just war. Postmodern conflict of the 21st Century (hybrid warfare) conceptualises hybridity as the leading characteristic of warfare, and places absolutely no restriction on the nature and proportion of state resources for warfare. Presenting the widest canvas of conflict in human history (i.e., simultaneously synchronising the political, military, economic, social, informational and infrastructural elements of national power as legitimate facets of warfare), the emerging ethical dilemma can either be viewed as a positive or a negative influence.

Such perspectives are products of a particular world-view, when these are used as the basis of analysing ethical imperatives e.g., realism, liberalism, pragmatism, constructivism or pacifism. While one might expect that ethical considerations would act as a constraint, what emerges from Zehfuss (2018) analysis is that instead, the commitment to ethics enables [good / humanitarian] war and indeed enhances its violence. To think in Foucauldian terms, ethics and morality figure out prominently in our contemporary landscape precisely because it has been problematised. But can such ethical perspectives be made in an era of an ever-intrusive mass media blitz, touching the limits of misperception management that frequently blurs the distinction between war and peace? This also raises another inquiry; are ethical standards universal or case-dependent?

Ethics seek to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts, such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy is related to the fields of moral psychology (study of moral development), descriptive ethics, and value theory (axiology). Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people’s belief about morality (what is right). It differs from meta-ethics (what right means), normative ethics (how people should act) and applied ethics (how moral knowledge is put into practice). Meta-ethics today stand at the confluence of beliefs, democratic opinions and state legislation, which are mixed in varying combinations as per situational imperatives.

With an ever-intrusive social media presence, mega-ethic trends influence descriptive and normative ethics, while leaving the applied ethics to laws and treaties. The enormity of the field of ethics in human behaviour is baffling, and it seems pragmatic to restrict it here to one of the most recurring phenomena of human history i.e., conflict, in light of comparative ethics. War, whatever the conscience advocates, is a fundamental of life representing the ultimate expression of man’s apparently endless struggle for resources and space, in addition to his desire for security, power and self-justification. Of all these factors that invoke conflict, presently security seems the most dominant, followed by power and culminates with self-justification. It is here that ethics can play its role as arbiter.

International just-war theory crystallised after the Second World War with the signing of the United Nations Charter in 1945, and the subsequent Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 2(3) of the UN Charter demands peaceful settlement of disputes, without impinging on the right of states to defend themselves from attack (Article 51). The UN-affiliated Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) charter calls upon member Muslim states “to adhere our commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter, the present Charter and International Law”, part of which is adherence to the just-war theory. So essentially, all Muslim countries did not see any major conflict between the UN Charter and traditional conceptions of Jihad, which is the Islamic equivalent of just-war theory. However, some western thinkers fail to make this connection between traditional Islam and modern developments. This, then brings to forth the issue of interpreting these principles.

Since the beginning of the 21st Century, we have found ourselves in apparently unending and supposedly inevitable war. At the same time, what Anne Orford (2003) calls a ‘new interventionism, or willingness to use force in the name of humanitarian values’ shaped international politics. In such a contemporary anarchic state-based system of international relations, narrowly focused on self-centred national interests and underscored by an interdependent globalised economy, it seems that our peaceful existence must be based on ethical considerations. Our salvation lies in adhering to the universal principles of conduct of combatants in warfare, as outlined in just war, milhama, jihad, international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights (UDHR 1949). We can use the ethical considerations of morality before going to war (i.e., jus ad bellum, meaning ‘right to go to war’), during the war (i.e., jus in bello, meaning ‘right conduct in war’) and after the war (i.e. jus post bellum, meaning the morality of dealing with post-war settlements and reconstruction). While there is almost a universal consensus on jus in bello (right conduct during war) in shape of Geneva Conventions and IHL, there are apparent differences on dictates of jus ad bellum (the right moral conditions for going to war). The field of jus post bellum (justice after war) is considered to be yet in the evolutionary stages. Based solely on the history of western just war tradition, the student of comparative ethics ought to recognise that there are at least three models, broadly speaking, for understanding ethics: the legal paradigm, the virtue or character paradigm, and the economic paradigm. In this context the virtue or character paradigm assumes added importance, and has the potential to significantly influence the other two.

The concept of hybrid warfare has been criticised by a number of academics and practitioners due to its alleged vagueness, its disputed constitutive elements, and its alleged historical distortions. The abstractness of the term means that it is often used as a catch-all term for all non-linear threats, as well as their use along with linear threats, and by keeping them under detection as well as response thresholds. By combining kinetic operations with subversive efforts, the aggressor intends to avoid attribution or retribution. This context alone makes hybrid war an anathema to the very concept of ethics in warfare. Leaving aside the viability, legality and conduct of hybrid war, the primary question confronting us, is how to juxtapose such conflict imperatives (unending war) to the contemporary dictates of national security? The answer lies in the factor of capability and ethics. The inherent logic of hybrid war as a timeless conflict in every field of life, tends to take away the considerations of jus ad bellum, or at best mixes them with jus in bello. This leaves the ethical dimension of hybrid war restricted to being just and right, distinction, proportionality, military necessity and no means malum in se. Unless being just and right is universal, we will always have conflict. And that’s probably the only space available to indulge in hybrid warfare.

What moral principles should we follow during war? Jus ad bellum (moral justifications for going to war) requires that the cause for war is just; the right authority makes the decision; the decision is made with the right intention of bringing about peace; the war is a last resort; the overall evil of the war does not outweigh the good. The last part of preceding concept says it all! Ethical dimensions of hybrid war must be based on the moral justifications as enunciated by leading faiths of the world, as well as the human conscience, which proclaims war as permissible only if it is kept within the bounds of universal ethics.

It seems befitting to paraphrase the father of ethics, Aristotle, as an epitome to the preceding discussion. A war is just, if it is undertaken by “the right people, for the right reasons, and in the right way”. Only ethics can lead us on this way.

Notes

1. Helen Frowe, The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction (Routledge: New York, 2016), 1.
2. Gregory M. Reichberg, Thomas Aquinas on War and Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), viii. Also see, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Christian Classics Ethereal Library), pt. II, sec. 2, q. 40, a. 1.
3. Maja Zehfuss, War and the Politics of Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 3.
4. Gavin Kendall and Gary Wickham, Using Foucault’s Methods (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1999), 3.
5. The English word ethics is derived from the Ancient Greek word ēthicas (ἠθικός), meaning «relating to one›s character», which itself comes from the root word êthos (ἦθος) meaning «character, moral nature». This word was transferred into Latin as ethica and then into French as éthique, from which it was transferred into English.
6. Veronica Root Martinez, “More Meaningful Ethics”, Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 191023, University of Chicago Law Review Online (January 7, 2020), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=3474344 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3474344
7. Comparative ethics, the empirical (observational) study of the moral beliefs and practices of different peoples and cultures in various places and times. It aims not only to elaborate such beliefs and practices but also to understand them insofar as they are causally conditioned by social, economic, and geographic circumstances. Comparative ethics, in contrast to normative ethics, is thus the proper subject matter of the social sciences (e.g., anthropology, history, sociology, and psychology). Available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/ comparative-ethics, accessed on 21.1.23
8. Kenneth Macksey, The Guinness Book of History of Land Warfare (London: Oxford University Press, 1993), 4.
9. “Just War: Definition and Introduction”, by Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. Just war is warfare that is justified by a moral or legal tradition. Just war theory presumes that there are legitimate uses of war but also sets moral boundaries on the waging of war. It deals with two fundamental questions concerning the ethics of war and peace: When is it morally and legally justified to go to war? What moral principles should we follow during war? Jus ad bellum (moral justifications for going to war) requires that the cause for war is just; the right authority makes the decision; the decision is made with the right intention of bringing about peace; the war is a last resort; the overall evil of the war does not outweigh the good. Jus in bello (moral principles to follow during war) governs the treatment of prisoners; requires the protection of civilians, and prohibits the disproportionate use of force. A third part of just war theory is just post bellum, denoting justice after war. “Just War: Definition and Introduction,” Carnegie Council, accessed on November 28, 2023, https:// www.carnegiecouncil.org/explore-engage/key-terms/ just-war#:~:text=Just%20war%20is%20warfare%20 that,on%20the%20waging%20of%20war.
10. Article 2(3) of the Charter states that, “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered”. Available at, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full text, accessed on November 23, 2023.
11. Article 51 of UN Charter states that, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. Ibid.
12. Arwa Ibrahim, “All you need to know about the OIC: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the second largest intergovernmental body after the UN”, Al Jazeera, May 31, 2019, accessed on November 23, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/ news/2019/5/31/all-you-need-to-know-about-the oic.
13. Justin Parrott, Jihad in Islam: Just War Theory in Quran and Sunnah (Texas, USA: Yaqeen Institue for Islamic Research, 2020), 4.
14. Parrott, Jihad in Islam, 4.
15. Mark Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples (UK: Polity Publishers, 2007), 1. ‘Unending war’ is Duffield’s term. The US Army talks about ‘persistent conflict’. See George W. Casey Jr, “Comprehensive Soldier Fitness: A Vision for Psychological Resilience in the U.S. Army”, American Psychologist 66, no. 1 (2011):1 and Paul T. Berghaus and Nathan L. Cartagena, “Developing Good Soldiers: The Problem of Fragmentation within the Army”, Journal of Military Ethics 12, no. 4 (2013): 291.
16. Anne Orford, Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003), 2.
17. It is the Jewish word for war. Shoshana Kardova, “Word of the Day Milhama: Sometimes War Is Just a Game. Combat is a serious matter. When it’s not, the pronunciation changes. Haaretz (October 11, 2013), accessed on November 28, 2023, https://www.haaretz. com/2013-10-11/ty-article/.premium/word-of-the day-milhama/0000017f-e0d4-df7c-a5ff-e2fe1e6a0000.
18. “Jihad,” BBC, last updated on August 3, 2009, accessed on December 6, 2023, https://www.bbc. co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/jihad_1.shtml.
19. Charles Guthrie and Michael Quinlan, “Chapter III: The Structure of the Tradition,” in Just War: The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare (London: Bloomsbury Publications, 2007), 11–15.
20. Frowe, The Ethics of War and Peace:, 239. “Advocates of jus post bellum insist that if, as Augustine argued, war is only legitimate to the extent that it is fought to preserve a just peace, then it stands to reason that combatants be held to account for the way in which the war is concluded and peace managed”. Quoted from, A. Bellamy, “The responsibilities of victory: Jus Post Bellum and the just war”, Review of International Studies 34 (2008): 601–2.
21. Torkel Brekke, The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective (New York: Routledge. 2006), 7. As explained in, Introduction: Comparative ethics and the crucible of war, by, G. Scott Davis.
22. Donald Stoker and Craig Whiteside “Blurred Lines: Gray-Zone Conflict and Hybrid War—Two Failures of American Strategic Thinking”, Naval War College Review 73, no. 1 (Winter 2020): 1–37.
23. Frederick Burkle, “Bastardizing Peacekeeping and the Birth of Hybrid Warfare,” Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 37, no. 2 (March 2022): 147-149, doi:10.1017/S1049023X22000425.
24. Peter Pindjak, “Deterring hybrid warfare: a chance for NATO and the EU to work together?,” NATO Review, November 18, 2014, accessed on November 28, 2023, https://www.nato.int/docu/review/ articles/2014/11/18/deterring-hybrid-warfare-a chance-for-nato-and-the-eu-to-work-together/index. html.
25. Latin legal phrase meaning bad in itself.
26. “Just War: Definition and Introduction”, by Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs.
27. Brekke, The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations, 7.