Why Is Ethics Necessary Even in War? [Window on Korea]

Dr. Nam-Kook Kim, Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Korea University and Advisory Committee Member of CUKPE

Overshadowed by the impact of the U.S.-Iran war on the global economy, the Russia-Ukraine war, which began in February 2022 and is now entering its fifth year, is becoming a forgotten conflict. Meanwhile, the nature of the war has intensified; Ukraine is using drones to concentrate attacks on energy facilities in mainland Russia, while Russia is launching large-scale missile strikes on major Ukrainian cities, including the capital, Kyiv. What makes this horrific war, which has resulted in 600,000 military deaths and 15,000 civilian deaths, even more dangerous is that it challenges the traditional ethics of war known as the principle of non-combatant immunity.

Theories of war defined to date have emphasized the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-combatant immunity as standards for conducting war. In other words, they viewed war as requiring the use of only the minimum means necessary to achieve military objectives, the protection of civilians by distinguishing them from combatants, and the assumption that intentional attacks against civilians constitute war crimes. While acknowledging that military attacks may inevitably result in civilian casualties, these principles argue that such attacks are ethically justifiable only when the end is legitimate, the means are appropriate, and efforts are made to minimize collateral damage.

However, the patterns we witnessed in the Russo-Roman War were indiscriminate attacks on civilian residential areas in major cities and extensive military strikes on rear areas away from the front lines. Regarding this reality, where the principle of non-combatant immunity is effectively neutralized, there is an explanation from a perspective that revises existing theories of war. That is, in modern warfare, the distinction between responsibility and immunity from responsibility is more important than the distinction between combatants and non-combatants; and whether a target is a legitimate military attack depends on the extent of moral responsibility for the unjust threat of war, even if that target is a civilian.

An extreme example of this responsibility-based approach can be seen in Osama bin Laden's justification for the 9/11 attacks. He argued that American civilians were justifiable targets for military attacks because they had participated directly or indirectly in the wars waged by the U.S. government. In other words, he claimed that American citizens were legitimate targets for Al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks because they voted in support of the U.S. government waging war, paid taxes to purchase weapons, and supported the soldiers fighting the battles.

However, the responsibility-based approach carries the risk that, depending on how the scope of responsibility is defined, it can be misused as a mechanism to justify attacks on civilians and carries the potential for the uncontrollable expansion of war into civil society as a whole. In other words, the principle of non-combatant immunity—which holds that combatants are legitimate targets of attack while civilians are not—may not be logically perfect, but it has served as a practical mechanism to curb the indiscriminate nature and brutality of war. In this respect, the normative simplicity of this principle was not a moral flaw but an advantage in terms of stability in preventing the spread of war.

Amidst the cruelty of the modern world, there is likely no act as brutal as war waged by the state. If the modern liberalism we achieved provided the normative foundation to prevent the politics of terror that threatens individual freedom, then we must constantly present ethical standards and evaluate the process of war to prevent the evil of cruelty and terror it brings. We must assess the initiation and conduct of war, control it as much as possible according to normative standards, and transform it into a arena for nonviolent political struggle. Even in war, ethics remain important and necessary.

(This article was originally published as a column in Hankook Ilbo in Korean and translated into English with the help of Google Translate. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official stance of the center.)