A Critique of Valls' Interpretation of Just War Theory

A detailed Summary of A Critique of Valls' Interpretation of Just War Theory

In light of recent events and the current "war on terrorism" it seems critical to move away from political rhetoric and approach the issue with as much reasonable objectivity as possible. The central question that Andrew Valls attempts to answer is weather terrorism can be justified. He argues that it can in some cases when measured against just war theory. Just war theory sets moral limits on the waging of war while justifying its legitimacy. I am in agreement with his conclusion but my defense of his argument relies on acceptance of his definition of terrorism, which seems to me rather broad.

Valls defines terrorism as political violence done to persons or property committed by nonstate actors. It must be politically motivated for any other form of violence is considered crime and subject to domestic laws. He adds violence against property to include attacks that would be considered terrorism even though they do not harm people. An example of this would be the bombing of an abortion clinic. When he limits the violence to nonstate actors, he doesn't deny the existence of state sponsored terrorism. He states that this type of violence is a matter of domestic justice, and in cases outside its borders, just war theory can

Under the provisions of just war theory, there are several criteria that a state must meet for the violence it initiates to be considered morally justifiable. Under jus ad bellum, the legitimate authority requirement has traditionally meant that only sovereign states may wage war. The reason for this is that private citizens do not need to resort to political violence because they have the state to protect their rights and interests and the state holds the monopoly on legitimate force to look out for the common good. Clearly not all states protect the rights and interests of their people. Some have been forcibly deprived of that right, as in cases of colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation. If states are malevolent enough, then in principle, violence cannot be ruled out as a necessary means of ending injustice. The UN general assembly endorsed such actions in its denunciation of terrorism in 1987. Valls asserts that some nonstate organizations present a plausible claim to be a people's representative. Therefore some nonstate actors may justifiably use violence for political reasons.

Finding examples of terrorist groups that meet the requirements of just war theory is a difficult task, as it should be. The ANC in of South Africa during the 1980's seems a likely candidate. The Kurds of Southern Turkey and Northern Iraq are a good modern example of a people fighting two extremely repressive regimes. While some would not consider guerilla warriors as terrorists, they fall within the broad definition that Valls presents. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The guerillas in Cambodia may meet all the requirements of just war theory just as the Vietcong arguably did when fighting the F

Some common words found in the essay are:
Valls' Held, Andrew Valls, Northern Iraq, , war theory, South Africa, nonstate actors, principle double effect, requirements war theory, requirements war, double effect, principle double, meet requirements war, morality principle double, definition valls, terrorism justified, attempts avoid, meet requirements, protect rights,

Approximate Word count = 1166
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Politics