Advertisement

‘Right Intent’: The Moral Dimension of Exit

  • Desiree Verweij
Chapter
Part of the NL ARMS book series (NLARMS)

Abstract

The moral dimension of exit is closely related to the moral dimension of entry. Notably, when the entry is highly questioned from a moral perspective, by many different actors, there are bound to be moral problems with regard to exit as well. This point will be illustrated by a discussion of the situation in Iraq from the contested entry in 2003 until the present. A firm basis in Just War principles, with a special focus on ‘right intent’ will prove helpful with regard to both entry and exit strategies and with regard to the present-day pendant of Just War, ‘The responsibility to protect’. ‘Right intent’ is seen in the classical Just War tradition as the appropriate inward disposition. It implies no separation in ‘ad bellum’, ‘in bello’ and ‘post bellum’ and is in all these phases aimed at the realisation of ‘peace as the tranquillity of an order ruled by the doing of justice’. This ‘appropriate inward disposition’ seems indispensable in the present-day discussions on entry and exit strategies. In similar ways as the ius ad bellum, in bello and post bellum aspects need to be viewed from the perspective of ‘right intent’, the entry and exit aspects of an intervention need the same ‘appropriate inward disposition’ perspective, which implies acknowledging the responsibilities and obligations and thus the moral dimension that connects entry and exit. In that sense the envisaged exit might lead to a different entry and as such breaks open an opposition that proves hard to maintain from a moral perspective.

Keywords

Just War right intent ius post bellum connection between entry and exit Iraq ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AIV (2010) ‘Nederland en de ‘Responsibility to Protect’. De verantwoordelijkheid om mensen te beschermen tegen massale wreedheden’, rapport van de AIV (Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken), June 2010Google Scholar
  2. Annan KA (2000) We the Peoples. The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century. Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Burkhardt TA (2013) Reasonable Chance of Success. Analyzing the postwar requirements of jus ad bellum. In Allhoff F (et al) (eds) (2013) Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War, Just War Theory in the Twenty-first Century. Routledge, New York and London, pp 120-132Google Scholar
  4. Bush (2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002Google Scholar
  5. Croonenberg E (2003) Te beschaafd voor oorlog, HP/de Tijd, 4 April 2003, p 26Google Scholar
  6. Edelstein DM (2009), Exit Lessons. The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2009, 33(4):34-39Google Scholar
  7. Gartner SS and Blanken L (2012) Beyond Victory and Defeat. In: Rottstein H and Arquilla J (eds) Afghan Endgames – Strategy and Policy Choices for American’s Longest War. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C., pp 127-149Google Scholar
  8. ICISS (2001) The Responsibility to Protect Report. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Published by the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson JT (2013) Contemporary Just War Thinking: Which is Worse, to Have Friends, or Critics? Ethics and International Affairs, Spring 2013, 27(1):25-46Google Scholar
  10. May L (2012) After War Ends: A Philosophical Perspective. Cambridge University Press CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Neurink J (2015) De Oorlog van ISIS. Conserve, SchoorlGoogle Scholar
  12. Mearsheimer JJ (2005) Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism versus Neo-Conservatism. Published on Open Democracy News Analysis (http://www.opendemocracy.net)
  13. O’Leary B (2009), Departing responsibly. In: Welzer M and Mills N (eds) (2009) Getting out. Historical Perspectives on Leaving Iraq. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia, pp 121-135Google Scholar
  14. O’Meara RM (2013) Jus Post Bellum. War closure in the 21st century. In: Allhoff F (et al.) (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War, Just War Theory in the Twenty-first Century, Routledge, New York and London, pp 105-120Google Scholar
  15. Orme JD (2004) The Paradox of Peace-Leaders, Decisions, and Confl ict Resolution. Palgrave MacMillan, New York,Google Scholar
  16. Packer G (2009) It isn’t over. In: Welzer M and Mills N (eds) Getting out. Historical Perspectives on Leaving Iraq. University of Philadelphia Press, pp 136-145Google Scholar
  17. Paris R and Sisk T (2009) (eds.) The Dilemmas of State Building. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Pollard E (2013), The Place of Just Post Bellum in Just War Considerations. In: Allhoff F (et al) (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War, Just War Theory in the Twenty-first Century. Routledge, New York and London, pp 93-105Google Scholar
  19. Porter G (2005) The third option in Iraq: a responsible exit strategy, Middle East Policy, vol. XII, no. 3, Fall 2005Google Scholar
  20. Rapport Commissie van Onderzoek Besluitvorming Irak (2010). Boom, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Rose G (1998) The exit strategy delusion, Foreign Affairs 77(1): 56-67Google Scholar
  22. Sharma SK (2008), Reconsidering the ius ad bellum/ius in bello distinction. In: Stahn C and Kleffner JK (eds) Jus Post Bellum. Towards a Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 9-30Google Scholar
  23. United Nations General Assembly (2005) Sixtieth Session, 2005 World Summit OutcomeGoogle Scholar
  24. Verweij D (2014) Hoe juist is de ‘juiste intentie’? De mogelijkheden en onmogelijkheden van de ‘traditie van de rechtvaardige oorlog’. Filosofie & Praktijk 35(1):49-60Google Scholar
  25. Walzer M (2004) Arguing about War. Yale University Press, New Haven/LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Woodward B (2002) Bush at War. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Defence AcademyBredaThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations