The Outcomes of Just War: An Empirical Study of the Outcomes Associated with Adherence to Just War Theory, 1960-2000

<p>Just war theory developed over more than 1,500 years with a normative, rather than empirical focus. Originally, it grew in the Christian context to ensure the salvation of war makers. Over time, it came to include humanist principles, focusing on the wellbeing of the victims of war. In contemporary debates, it is commonly appealed to for these humanist reasons. The purpose of this research, is to illuminate the degree to which just war theory benefits victims of war and/or the degree to which it is best understood as a construct to ease the conscience of the war makers.</p><p>This dissertation examines the empirical evidence for the value of just war theory in alleviating the suffering for those experiencing war. The study embraces both qualitative and quantitative methodologies examining selected wars between 1960 and 2000. The qualitative research is developed through case studies that describe the nature of the war making behavior and the context of each war. It scores the war making in each case according to its level of adherence in each of four areas of just war theory codified in international law. The four areas are proper authority, just cause, differentiation of targets, and proportionality in war making. For each requirement, each war maker is described as not adhering to the requirement, adhering in the most permissive form common in the literature, or adhering in the most rigorous form found in the literature. The quantitative study uses this scoring structure in generalized estimating equations to explore the connection between these various levels of adherence to just war principles and the justness of outcomes as defined by per capita gross domestic product and life expectancy at birth.</p><p>The research yields evidence of a number of patterns that merit further investigation. Broadly, the outcomes of justly prosecuted humanitarian interventions and territorial wars varied substantially in the period studied. With few exceptions, interventions tended to be associated with high adherence to just war principles and particularly poor outcomes in terms of life expectancy and per capita income while territorial wars tended to yield more just outcomes as adherence to just war requirements increased. Also of note, there is a shift in the outcomes associated with just war making in wars initiated prior to 1978. Before this threshold just war yielded more just outcomes and after it the inverse was true. This coincides with a shift toward an increase in humanitarian interventions but appears to apply to cases of territorial war as well only during this particular time frame within the study. Over the full course of the study, the mathematical model shows that rigorous adherence to just war theory yielded only slightly better results than non-adherence during the period under consideration. The results are not generalizable due to low statistical significance so additional research is warranted to determine if just war theory is best viewed as a humanitarian option for prosecuting wars or if it is most accurately described as a balm for the conscience of the war maker.</p>

Name thesis:degree_name

PhD

Level thesis:degree_level

doctoral

Discipline thesis:degree_discipline

Arts and Sciences: Political Science

Grantor dc:publisher

University of Cincinnati

Year dc:date

2012

Author dc:creator

• Kauffman, Rudi D.

Contributors dc:contributor

• Mistry, Dinshaw

• International Relations
• Just War Theory
• GEE
• Generalized Estimating Equations
• Empirical Study of War
• HDI
• jus post bellum

Statement dc:rights

• unrestricted
• This thesis or dissertation is protected by copyright: all rights reserved. It may not be copied or redistributed beyond the terms of applicable copyright laws.

Language dc:language

English

Repository record dc:identifier

http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1342105770

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:etd.ohiolink.edu:ucin1342105770