What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Should there be missile strikes on Syria?

    It has taken me a little while to work out whether or not missile strikes against Syria are justified by the UK at the moment.

    It seems to me that there are quite a lot of people who don’t seem to need to take their time and know instinctively that military action either should or should not take place. Certainly those who are against missile strikes seem to be dusting down their “not in my name” T-shirts and getting ready to oppose military action.

    If you are a pacifist then the answer is clear. If you are a pacifist then you are going to be opposed to military action come what may.

    As it happens, I am not a pacifist. I think that there are situations when military action is justified but I think you’ve got to cross quite a high moral bar before you can justify the use of force.

    There’s three tests for me – classic just war theory, intervention for humanitarian purposes and enforcing international law.

    Let’s take them one by one.

    Just War Theory

    There’s plenty to read about Just War Theory. Some people don’t buy it at all but I think the tests are useful.

    The idea is that certain conditions must be met before a war might be considered legitimate. Such tests are laid out, for example, in the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

    They are:

    1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
    2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
    3. there must be serious prospects of success;
    4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).

    In this case, I think that the first test is partly but not wholly met.

    The use of chemical weapons is lasting and grave. However, the public doesn’t have certainty about how they were deployed. If governments have such  proof they have not made it public yet. There may be circumstances in which it is wise for governments to keep secret how they know things but it is the case that in modern times, simply saying “we know best and we are not telling you how we know” is a difficult place for governments to find themselves with their people.

    The second test is difficult for me to assess. Are there any alternatives to military action. If military action is just about the use of chemical weapons and not about taking sides in the war then I don’t know whether there are any alternatives. There certainly don’t seem to be many.

    The third test is more of a struggle I think. Is there really a serious chance of success? This doesn’t mean a chance that, for example, Western missiles might hit particular targets. The test is whether by hitting such targets, the use of chemical weapons would cease. Given that there were similar strikes by the US some time ago and we now appear to have further use of chemical weapons, I think we have to say that there are serious doubts about whether there is  realistic prospect of success.

    The fourth test is perhaps the most grave. It seems to me that the use of force might well produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. We don’t know and we cannot know whether this test can be met in this case.

    So, I’d say that Just War Theory offers little support for military intervention at the moment.

    Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes

    The UK has intervened in some countries in recent years for humanitarian purposes. In some cases it has gone well and in others perhaps less well. The Bosnian and Sierra Leone campaigns were said by many to be classic uses of force for good.

    The prospect of missile strikes in Syria does not seem to me to be entirely about intervention for humanitarian purposes. Certainly it would be good to stop chemical weapons being used but far from certain that this can be achieved. I see no plans to be involved in building the peace after the bombing. I see no plans to intervene for anyone’s good.

    Humanitarian concerns do not seem to be met by this proposed military intervention.

    Enforcing International Law

    The use of chemical weapons is illegal. Whoever used them committed a crime and should be brought to justice in the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Military intervention that was designed to bring perpetrators to justice could, in my view, be justified.

    However, I don’t think that what is currently apparently being considered comes anywhere near this.

    My conclusion

    So, my conclusion after looking at this proposed action through these moral lenses is that military action cannot be justified at this time.

    That is not to say that I think this is easy. I may be wrong. I think that it behoves everyone to support military personnel involved in any action that is taken. And I have much sympathy with the politicians who have decisions to make.

    I once wanted to be one of them.

    They have a hard job to do with partial information and some information that cannot be shared.

    So far as I can see this military action cannot be justified. However, I’m very aware that this is a view based on my limited knowledge of events.

    My thoughts are with all who have decisions to make which affect the lives of others.

    , ,

2 responses to “Human Rights Petition”

  1. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Kelvin

    I strongly agree with your sentiments and intend to sign the petition. As a practising barrister I can say that the incorporation of the Convention has had a hugely beneficial effect across society – especially in creating a rights aware culture amongst the judiciary.

    I have successfully relied on the Convention to (1) ensure that the state continues to support destitute asylum seekers whilst they are appealing an asylum support decision (2) prevent the removal of a mentally unwell Brazilian amputee who is awaiting further surgery in the UK (3) ensured that those detained under immigration powers are not held in “ordinary” prisons and (4) prevented the deportation of a Turkish national for a crime committed whilst a child. The Convention naturally “benefits” those on the edges of society – whose cause might be unpopular. That does not mean, of course, that it is unworthy. Quite the opposite.

    I have of course relied upon the Convention in cases which stretch the reach of the various articles. That is how the law develops. Judges do not embrace such claims uncritically. Unfounded and weak claims are rejected as such and so the public perception of an “out of touch” judiciary is misplaced. Thank God for the Judges who – if they were to follow the whims of public opinion would “string em up”, “bring back the birch” and “throw away the key”!

    The Human Rights Act 1998 still retains parliamentary sovereignty in any event. This means that Parliament can still introduce laws that are in breach of the Convention. All that a Judge can do when faced with such legislation is declare it to be “incompatible” and that is it. This may create political pressure (especially at a European level) but it means that the “Queen in Parliament” is still sovereign.

    In addition the HRA 1998 has become entrenched as an almost constitutional statute. Repeal or significant amendment would not create less litigation. On the contrary, as the Daily Mail might put it, lawyers would have a “field day” arguing about when a particular right ceased to exist under the ECHR in the UK and the extent to which rights survived repeal or amendment. It would create a legal mess, a constitutional back-step and a political nightmare.

    In fairness though a solicitor did ask me if they could bring a case to challenge a refusal by the police to allow a man more regular smoke breaks on the basis of his Convention rights (he was being questioned for murder)…I reminded the solicitor that the drafters of the Convention had in mind the ashes of Auschwitz when drafting the Convention and advised him to, as they say in Ulster, “catch yourself on!”

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Thanks Steven. It us really helpful to have your perspective and some concrete examples.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Bible Study – Turning Over a New Fig Leaf

    We had a good bible study last night at the LGBT group here at St Mary’s. I thought I’d post the basic questions here and see whether people wanted to have a go at answering them here too. First of all we read most of Genesis Chapter 2. (You can find the text at the…

  • Sermon – the Maker, Troublemaker, Peacemaker

    Here’s what I said on Sunday in the pulpit about that tricky gospel reading. Not peace, but a division Sometimes one reads the Gospel in church and everyone nods knowingly. You can tell that people think that what is being said is wise and good. When we tell the story of the Good Samaritan, perhaps.…

  • Our newest priest

    Great to be with Kate Reynolds as she was priested today in Old St Paul’s. Congratulations to her and to the congregation.

  • Friday Reading List

    Here are the most interesting things I’ve read this week. Kids can’t use computers – The plaintive cry of someone who can. due for revision – Kimberly Bohan riff off the ten commandments and asks what we should really be teaching people Rowan Williams wonders whether it could all have been different.