CARDUS

Home | Media Coverage | Was the Osama bin Laden killing an act of just war?

Was the Osama bin Laden killing an act of just war?

May 12, 2011

Insofar as it has an official stance on the morality of waging war, the Church of England is broadly committed to the "just war" tradition, a developing body of principles governing the legitimacy of military force and the constraints on its use, now partially encoded in the international law of war. So when senior Anglican clergy pronounce publicly on the deployment of military force (as they have every right to do) it is natural to inquire whether their thinking is materially informed by that tradition. The archbishop of Canterbury's disclosure of his "very uncomfortable feeling"' about Osama bin Laden being unarmed when he was killed was coaxed out of him during a short press conference in which he could not have been expected to set out the full stall of Anglican (or his own) thinking. But Professor Tom Wright, until recently Bishop of Durham, also made no mention of that body of thought in his more considered opinion piece. Wright implied that the killing was an act of "wild-west vigilantism" driven by the myth of American exceptionalism. That myth has certainly played a recurring and sometimes terribly damaging role in American foreign policy and it certainly merits a Christian response informed, for example, by the kind of biblical critique of "empire" powerfully rearticulated in recent years by Wright himself. But to assess whether or not any particular US military operation was an instance of "vigilantism", we need to go beyond the myth of exceptionalism and test the act against specific just war criteria. Just war principles were originally formulated to apply to military engagements between states, but they can legitimately be extended to an international terrorist organisation like al-Qaida, which has openly declared (and amply proved) itself actively engaged in a violent global campaign against the US and many other states involving the indiscriminate mass killing and maiming of civilians. The Metropolitan police chief put it thus: "Osama bin Laden led an organisation which is responsible for the injury and death of thousands of people worldwide in the name of an extreme and perverted ideology, committed to the use of terror and murder to achieve their aims." Bin Laden was not only "a war criminal", as the archbishop rightly noted, but arguably also an active combatant. The just war criterion of "just cause", in this case the protection of innocent civilians and military personnel from arbitrary attack, clearly legitimates putting the leadership of such an organisation out of action. If military means are the only option, then the just war principle of "last resort" permits them. Before the raid the US had every reason to suppose that al-Qaida was constantly engaged in planning or encouraging such acts (and subsequent reports confirm that), which makes its leadership a legitimate target for capture or killing, at any time. Assuming just cause, did the methods used in this operation meet the just war principle of "just means"? This requires, for example, that the force used be proportionate to the end in view and that there be no intentional killing of noncombatants. As of now, we do not yet possess sufficient information about precisely what transpired during the raid itself to reach a firm conclusion on that question. This may be why most experts in international law have so far hesitated to offer definitive judgements. The precise requirements of "just means" depend crucially on the exact circumstances of the case. For example, whether it might be just to kill an unarmed Bin Laden could depend on whether he was legitimately assumed to be wearing a concealed suicide vest. But UN human rights investigators (and others) are certainly justified in calling for as full disclosure as possible in order to establish whether or not the rule of law was indeed upheld in this case. Another crucial just war principle is "right authority," requiring that the agent taking the action is a legitimate political authority. The US government is a legitimate authority, and since US citizens are a principal al-Qaida target their government is entitled to take necessary action against it to protect them. But should it have deferred to the legitimate authority of the Pakistan government to carry out the assault, or at least sought its permission? International law does seem to rule out violations of another state's sovereignty even in pursuit of a just cause. So if the Pakistan government could have been relied upon to carry out the raid successfully, the answer would be yes. But, notwithstanding the costly efforts of Pakistan against terrorism, the fact remains that there was a high risk that any information passed even to its highest levels of government could have led to Bin Laden being tipped-off. So it is at least arguable that in this exceptional case, the US was morally and legally justified in bypassing that requirement. This doesn't yet amount to a conclusive defence of the US action but it does at least gesture towards the kind of assessment required if a military operation is to be deemed a case of vigilantism or of justice.