Contemplating International Morality in a Fragile World Order

• There is no single and standardized definition of the concept of International morality and it varies from country to country and from one region to another.
• While challenges of endless conflicts persist, the pursuit of international morality remains an essential endeavour for a more harmonious and equitable global society.
• International morality is a complex and evolving concept that plays a vital role in shaping the behaviour of states and individuals on the global stage.
• The ongoing challenges and their fallouts, especially in the cases of Afghanistan and Ukraine, highlight the importance of promoting ethical behaviour in international relations, which is oblivious to the hegemonic powers.

The contemporary world order is undergoing a major overhaul. The classical ideological notions of capitalism, socialism, liberty, freedom and democracy are becoming less relevant in striking strategic relationships across the world. The trend of transactional diplomacy, strategic partnerships with countries and regimes having an adverse or regressive value system, is becoming common. Therefore we need to understand the nature and state of international morality which should ideally exist, versus the painful contradictions that are currently operational in the world system. 

Understanding the nature of International Morality

One of the major problems that arises while defining International morality is that there is not a single and standardized definition of this concept and it varies from country to country and from one region to another. Assumption of ethical or moral standards of a country’s statesmen, diplomats and representatives with another country’s standards often leads us into a strategic dilemma, which in turn erupts into moral relativism. What might be ethical or moral to the Western civilization might be social deviance to the East, and vice versa. Therefore a common global perception and understating of international issues with the same moral lens becomes a strenuous task, with which international morality develops the limitations of its actions. 

Hans Morgenthau believes that the restraining function of moral rules is the most obvious and most effective in affirming the sacredness of human life in times of peace. Overall if we observe, the majority of the countries or the comity of nations, agree upon a set of moral principles, which do not clash with each other’s value system.  International morality as a conceptual notion consists of rules of customary international law, general principles, conventions and treaty obligations. In contemporary times, campaigning for an “international rules-based order with democracy as its core value” is also seen with a moralist lens.

But there is an increase in the wavering and fluctuating tendency in the world, with endless conflicts being fought with neo-nationalist and post-nationalist tendencies of safeguarding national territory from fascist forces or hyper-localized ethnic civil wars. The obvious natural beneficiary from this happens to be a global network of military-industrial complexes, which flourishes and thrives on wars and the fear of wars.

Key Principles of International Morality:

• Human Rights: The principle of human rights asserts that all individuals, regardless of nationality, are entitled to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Protecting and promoting human rights is a cornerstone of international morality.
• Justice: International justice seeks to hold individuals and states accountable for violations of international law and human rights abuses. This includes mechanisms such as international courts and tribunals to address war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
• Peaceful Conflict Resolution: The principle of peaceful conflict resolution encourages the use of diplomatic negotiations and mediation to settle disputes between states, rather than resorting to violence and armed conflict.
• Non-Intervention: This principle calls for states to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, except in cases where humanitarian intervention might be justified to prevent egregious human rights violations.
• Respect for Treaties and Agreements: Upholding the sanctity of treaties and agreements is essential for fostering trust and cooperation among states.

Hans Morgenthau, an eminent international relations scholar has given out three important dimensions of International morality;

1. Protection of human life in peace
2. Protection of Human life in war 
3. Moral condemnation of war. 

With these dimensions, Morgenthau believes that a certain degree of international peace and tranquillity can be achieved in the world, provided that a common thread of rules-based order is thoroughly followed by the most influential and powerful countries, which can also be described as geopolitical swing states. These states must invariably adhere to internationally agreed conventions, and must become an integral part of the treaty-bound peacekeepers of the world; either through deterrent mechanisms or an alliance-bound collective security arrangement. 

Historical Development of International Morality

Throughout history, various thinkers, philosophers, and religious traditions have pondered the ethical dimensions of interactions between different societies and nations, as the ancient world experienced an exponentially higher degree of violence when compared to the recent past, the quest for peaceful coexistence was a pressing issue for the philosophers of that era. From the great wars of the Greek city-states to Alexander’s world conquest and Chengiz Khan’s raids to colonial conquests, wars had become more of a status symbol, rather than a security necessity. To tackle this situation of conflicts, Ancient civilizations, such as those in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and India, formulated codes of conduct for engaging with foreign entities. In the classical era, Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle discussed justice, virtue, and the concept of “just war.” India too had developed codes of conduct and legal clauses which dealt with the external challenges from doctrines derived based on Shukraneeti, Danda Neethi and Artha Shastra, where Scholars like Shukracharya, Vidhura, and Chanakya had worked meticulously on war laws and strategic conflict management. 

The emergence of organized states and empires in the medieval period brought about the idea of just war theory and the ethical conduct of rulers during conflicts. Additionally, religious traditions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism contributed to the development of ethical principles that extend beyond the boundaries of the nation-state.

The Modern Era and International Law

The modern concept of international morality took shape alongside the emergence of international law and institutions in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 marked a significant turning point in shaping the idea of state sovereignty, emphasizing that states should respect each other’s territorial integrity and autonomy. During the Enlightenment, thinkers like Immanuel Kant advocated for a more cosmopolitan outlook, emphasizing the importance of moral principles in international relations.

In the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations was established to promote international cooperation, peace, and human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, further solidified the notion that certain ethical principles are universally applicable, regardless of cultural or national differences.

Understanding the Just War Theory in International Morality

Just war theory, also known as the theory of just war or just war doctrine, is a set of ethical principles and criteria that seeks to provide guidelines for when the use of military force is morally justified. It aims to balance the need for self-defence and the protection of innocent lives with the ethical constraints on the use of violence. The concept of just war has deep historical roots and has been developed and refined by various philosophers, theologians, and political thinkers over the centuries. The theory consists of two main aspects: jus ad bellum (the justice of going to war) and jus in bello (the justice of conducting war).

1) Jus ad bellum (Justice of Going to War):

The principles of jus ad bellum outline the conditions under which the decision to go to war can be considered morally justifiable. For a war to be deemed just, it must meet the following criteria:

a. Just Cause: The war must have a valid and morally defensible reason, typically involving self-defence against an aggressor or the defence of others from harm or injustice. Wars of aggression, conquest, or revenge are generally considered unjust.

b. Right Intention: The primary intention behind going to war must be to establish a just peace and rectify the wrong that prompted the conflict. War cannot be waged with malicious intent or for ulterior motives.

c. Legitimate Authority: Only legitimate authorities, such as governments or recognized international bodies, have the authority to declare war. Individuals or non-state actors should not initiate armed conflicts.

d. Last Resort: War should only be considered after all peaceful means of resolving the conflict have been exhausted. Diplomacy, negotiation, and mediation should be pursued before resorting to armed force.

e. Proportionality: The potential benefits of going to war must outweigh the expected costs and harms. The level of force used should be proportional to the threat faced.

2) Jus in Bello (Justice in Conducting War):

Jus in bello refers to the ethical principles that govern the conduct of armed conflict. Even if a war is considered just according to jus ad bellum, the means employed during the war must still adhere to moral principles. 

Key principles of jus in bello include:

a. Proportionality: The force used during the war must be proportionate to the military objective and should not cause unnecessary harm to civilians or non-combatants.

b. Discrimination: Distinction must be made between combatants and non-combatants. The deliberate targeting of civilians or non-combatants is prohibited.

c. Prohibition of Torture and Inhumane Treatment: The use of torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war, detainees, or civilians is forbidden.

d. Respect for Prisoners of War: Combatants who surrender or are captured should be treated with respect and humanely.

e. No Means Mala in Se: this means, certain actions are deemed inherently wrong and unacceptable, such as the intentional killing of non-combatants or the use of weapons that cause indiscriminate harm.

It is important to note that just war theory is not a justification for war per se but rather a framework for evaluating the moral legitimacy of going to war and conducting war. It provides a set of guidelines to help the countries take up the roles of decision-makers and military commanders navigate complex moral dilemmas in times of armed conflict, by providing the right value-based directions in navigating the complex pathways in warfare.

In practice, determining whether a specific war meets the criteria of just war theory can be a contentious and challenging task, as different interpretations and perspectives may arise depending on the context and the actors involved. These challenges often turn into pure opportunism to dominate a minor or a weak nation by a relatively large and powerful nation. The bombings carried out by the USA, Russia, Israel and several Middle Eastern countries in the name of humanitarian intervention leads to a greater amount of “collateral damage” rather than achieving the originally intended objectives. Especially when the USA intervenes in different conflicts in the third world, in the name of spreading the liberal ideologies of freedom and democracy, causing an immeasurable amount of human destruction, the entire western block stands rock solid, behind the American atrocities turning a blind eye to the repercussions of irreversible damage of human status, with a devastating refugee crisis, which follows it. These actions place the concepts of just war and humanitarian intervention in the bay of cynicism.

International morality is a complex and evolving concept that plays a vital role in shaping the behaviour of states and individuals on the global stage. But the ongoing challenges and their fallouts, especially in the cases of Afghanistan and Ukraine, highlight the importance of promoting ethical behaviour in international relations, which is oblivious to the hegemonic powers. The dangers of a prospective nuclear war, and its immediate fallout on the global order, can bring human progress to an unexpected grinding halt. By adhering to the principles of human rights, justice, peaceful conflict resolution, and respect for agreements, the international community can certainly witness the fostering of a more just, peaceful, and cooperative world order.

While challenges of endless conflicts persist, the pursuit of international morality remains an essential endeavour for a more harmonious and equitable global society. As international harmony is the sole anchor, which can provide a geopolitical collective security apparatus, with reasonably agreed-upon equations of international trust and mutual respect, which are both legal and perceptively “moral”.  

_{(The author has a MA in International Relations. Views expressed are author’s own)}

References:

1. _{Woolf, L. S. “International Morality.” International Journal of Ethics, vol. 26, no. 1, 1915, pp. 11–22. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2376732. Accessed 5 Aug. 2023.}
2. _{Morgenthau, Hans J. “The Twilight of International Morality.” Ethics, vol. 58, no. 2, 1948, pp. 79–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2378826. Accessed 5 Aug. 2023.}
3. _{“PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL MORALITY: Resolution Passed by the XXXVIIth Inter-Parliamentary Conference at Its Session in Rome, 6-11 September 1948.” World Affairs, vol. 111, no. 4, 1948, pp. 257–59. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20664643. Accessed 5 Aug. 2023.}
4. _{Peu Ghosh, International Relations 5^th edition, Publisher: PHI Learning ISBN: 9789389347586.}
5. _{WALZER, MICHAEL. “The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success).” Social Research, vol. 69, no. 4, 2002, pp. 925–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971584. Accessed 5 Aug. 2023.}

Viswapramod C

Viswapramod is a PhD Scholar at the Department of International Studies and Political Science, Christ University, Bangalore. He has an MA in International Relations. Views expressed are the author’s own.