Question 10

Ethical Issues Prior to the War (Jus ad Bellum)

Jus ad bellum, or the right to war, outlines the conditions under which resorting to war is ethically permissible. Several key principles were challenged in the lead-up to the Russia-Ukraine conflict:

• Just Cause: Russia justified its invasion based on protecting Russian-speaking populations and preventing NATO expansion. However, this justification is contested, with many viewing it as a pretext for territorial expansion and undermining Ukrainian sovereignty.
• Legitimate Authority: While Russia is a sovereign state with the authority to declare war, the legitimacy of its motives and adherence to international law are questionable.
• Right Intention: The stated intention of ‘demilitarization’ and ‘denazification’ of Ukraine lacked credible evidence and appeared to be a smokescreen for achieving broader geopolitical objectives.
• Last Resort: Diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict in the Donbas region were ongoing, though Russia argued they had failed. Critics contend that these efforts were not exhausted before resorting to military force.
• Proportionality: The scale of the invasion and the potential for widespread destruction were disproportionate to the stated objectives.

Ethical Issues During the War (Jus in Bello)

Jus in bello, or the laws of war, governs the ethical conduct of warfare. The Russia-Ukraine war has witnessed several violations:

• Distinction: Numerous reports from organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (as of knowledge cutoff in early 2023) document indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, violating the principle of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. The shelling of Mariupol and Kramatorsk exemplify this.
• Proportionality: Even when targeting legitimate military objectives, the use of disproportionate force resulting in excessive civilian casualties raises serious ethical concerns.
• Necessity: Attacks that are not militarily necessary, such as targeting infrastructure with no military value, are ethically unacceptable.
• Treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs): Allegations of mistreatment and torture of Ukrainian POWs by Russian forces have surfaced, violating the Geneva Conventions.

Ethical Issues Regarding the Continuation of the War

The prolonged nature of the war introduces further ethical complexities:

• Responsibility to Protect (R2P): The international community’s response raises questions about the effectiveness of R2P. While the principle aims to protect populations from mass atrocities, the lack of decisive intervention has led to continued suffering.
• Complicity in War Crimes: Countries providing military aid to Ukraine, while arguably supporting a legitimate defense, face ethical scrutiny regarding potential complicity in actions that may violate international humanitarian law.
• Economic Sanctions: While intended to pressure Russia, economic sanctions have also had adverse effects on the global economy and the civilian population in Russia, raising questions about their ethical justification.
• Prolongation of Suffering: The continued fighting prolongs human suffering and increases the risk of escalation, potentially involving nuclear weapons.

The ethical dilemma of balancing national interests with humanitarian concerns is central to the actions of various nations. For instance, Germany’s initial reluctance to provide heavy weaponry to Ukraine, stemming from its historical relationship with Russia and energy dependence, highlights this tension.