Modern Conflict and Just War

[tjm190]

Two questions/scenarios on morality in modern conflict.
First-
If a government were to loose control of the land it governed in war, would it still constitute a legitimate authority for the sake of just war theory? (e.g. would it have been moral for Chiang Kai-shek to keep fighting had he lost control of Taiwan? Was the French Resistance a legitimate force?)

Second-
Let’s say two nations are at war. On one side, there is a particularly skilled bomber pilot. Now certainly it’s licit to shoot him down and kill him while he’s preforming combat operations. But that is quite difficult, him being so skilled and all. Is he not also a legitimate target when he’s on base preparing to take off? Sleeping? Having a drink with his friends near the base? Would it be acceptable that some of his non-combatant friends were wounded in an attempts to kill him?

If so, consider that he is instead a drone pilot, thousands of miles from the battlefield. Is he still a legitimate target when he’s not actively controlling a drone? On his evening commute? Asleep in his bed? At his daughter’s school play? Is it acceptable if civilians are wounded in yout attempts to kill him?

Now, if your answer to question one was yes, that a government forced out of control can still licitly make war, then I claim the Taliban is not a terrorist organization but rather a legitimate authority.

Your take on question two may or may not mean a very specific type of acts we would otherwise consider terrorism are in fact legitimate acts of war.

 

[Katholish]

tjm190,

If a government were to loose control of the land it governed in war, would it still constitute a legitimate authority for the sake of just war theory? (e.g. would it have been moral for Chiang Kai-shek to keep fighting had he lost control of Taiwan? Was the French Resistance a legitimate force?)

Yes, if control is temporarily lost, a legitimate government may continue to fight to restore order. If those currently in control are given time to become well-established, they will eventually become the *de facto *legitimate authority. The time period such a transition would take depends on the circumstances, but could be as little as five years, or as long as two generations. Kai-shek would have been justified had he not retreated to Taiwan. The French might not be considered just because there was no legitimate authority directing their actions. It could be argued, however, that the Vichy government was not a legitimate government, and hence the surrender need not be honored. France was really in a power vacuum since Axis control certainly was illegitimate, so perhaps the argument could be made that the resistance acted justly and did not need official approval since no official government existed.

Let’s say two nations are at war. On one side, there is a particularly skilled bomber pilot. Now certainly it’s licit to shoot him down and kill him while he’s preforming combat operations. But that is quite difficult, him being so skilled and all. Is he not also a legitimate target when he’s on base preparing to take off? Sleeping? Having a drink with his friends near the base? Would it be acceptable that some of his non-combatant friends were wounded in an attempts to kill him?

Enemy combatants are legitimate targets whether they are sleeping or not. A drone pilot is an enemy combatant.

Now, if your answer to question one was yes, that a government forced out of control can still licitly make war, then I claim the Taliban is not a terrorist organization but rather a legitimate authority.

The label of terrorist organization was earned by the Taliban even before the Northern Alliance successfully gained political control. They are called terrorists because of their methods and not because of their status as an enemy guerrilla force. When the Taliban was in power, they ruled by terror and they supported terrorist organizations operating in foreign countries. That is why they are called terrorists–at least primarily.