Is intentional harm to civilians ever permissible during war? Consider the principle of distinction, and the doctrine of double effect to defend your answer. Archie Castledine – PO239 Throughout history, civilian casualties and deaths have been an unfortunate side effect of war and conflict. In certain circumstances however, it can be argued that the intentional harm of civilians can be justified, as the act of causing intentional harm of civilians can be seen as a lesser of two evils and essential for competing essential and important military objectives. It can also be argued that any harm to civilians, whether its intentional or unintentional, is never permissible, as there are certain principles that exist in the international and domestic political system to protect civilians from harm in war zones. However, the enforcement of these principles in practice are hard to implement due to various factors in warfare. The argument used by those who believe that intentional harm to civilians is permissible comes from the idea of the doctrine of double effect. The doctrine of double effect falls under the idea of just war theory, a doctrine “which nations seek to legally and morally justify going to war”. 63 The just war doctrine has its origins in Christianity with the 5 th century writings of Saint Augustine who believed “that war is waged with the intent of long-term peace and that in wiling the collective good of our state we will sometimes have
63 Jon Dorbolo, Just War Theory (2001), <https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteri a_intro.html> [Accessed 14 February 2019].
37
Made with FlippingBook HTML5