Theories of war in political science

Alexandre et Darius face à face Musée archéologique national de Naples.

Données clés
Faculté	Faculté des sciences de la société
Département	Département de science politique et relations internationales
Professeur(s)	Rémi Baudoui
Cours	Introduction to Political Science

Lectures

Political science has long been concerned with war as one of the most extreme and devastating aspects of international relations. Indeed, war has profound implications for politics, economics, society and culture, and can radically change the course of history.

The political science approach to war is often multidimensional. It includes theoretical, historical, sociological, economic and psychological analyses. However, the ability of political science to understand and explain war is sometimes questioned. There are several reasons for this.

Theory limitations: Many political theories (e.g. realism, liberalism, constructivism) have their own assumptions and limitations. They can explain some aspects of war, but not all. For example, realism emphasises power and anarchy in international relations, but may have difficulty explaining why some powerful states choose not to go to war.

Prediction and prevention: Although political science has made progress in understanding the causes of war, it often has difficulty predicting when and where wars will break out. Similarly, despite knowledge of the factors that contribute to war, it is often difficult to prevent them.

Methodological problems: Political science often depends on historical data to build and test theories. However, wars are relatively rare events and each war has its own unique characteristics. This makes it difficult to generalise from specific cases.

The influence of politics: Political science, like any discipline, is not immune to political pressures. Political scientists can be influenced by their own biases, by the interests of their sponsors or by the political mainstream.

That said, political science has much to offer the study of war. It provides theoretical frameworks for understanding the causes of war, the strategies of war, and the consequences of war. It also allows for the analysis of efforts to prevent war and to build peace. Finally, it offers a critical perspective that can challenge dominant discourses on war.

The nature of war has changed over the centuries. Traditionally, war was seen as a conflict between nation-states, often over territory, resources or power. In this context, the rules of war were relatively clear and formal, governed by international conventions such as the Geneva Conventions. However, with the advent of partisan warfare in the 19th century, the nature of warfare began to change. Partisan warfare, as conceptualised by thinkers like Clausewitz, often involves non-state individuals or groups fighting against a state. These wars are often asymmetric, with an imbalance of power between the parties, and can be characterised by guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and other forms of irregular resistance.

In addition, we are now witnessing another evolution of warfare. With globalisation, technological change, and the rise of international terrorism, we are seeing more and more conflicts that are not limited to national borders and that involve a variety of non-state actors, including terrorist groups, private militias, and even cyber security companies. These "hybrid" or "non-linear" wars can be difficult to manage and resolve, as they do not follow the traditional rules of warfare. Indeed, one concern with these new forms of warfare is that they may seem to never end. Without a clearly defined state to defeat or a specific territory to conquer, it can be difficult to define victory or the end of the war. This can lead to protracted conflicts, with all the human suffering and political instability that this implies.

These developments present important challenges for political science and for society in general. It is essential to continue to reflect on these issues, to develop new theories and strategies, and to work for conflict prevention and peace building.

Languages

English Español

Why has political science become interested in war?

War has been a ubiquitous feature throughout human history, and it has profoundly shaped societies, cultures, economies and politics. This is why political science, as well as other disciplines such as history, sociology and psychology, have a strong interest in war. Europe has been largely spared direct armed conflict from the end of World War II in 1945 until 2022, thanks in large part to the construction of the European Union, nuclear deterrence and the presence of NATO. There have been notable exceptions, such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is a sombre reminder that peace is never guaranteed and that war can break out even in regions that have enjoyed a long period of peace. The crisis has highlighted existing tensions around the expansion of NATO and the European Union eastwards, as well as Ukraine's aspirations to integrate further with Europe. This has profound implications for Europe and the world, in terms of security, political stability, international relations and human rights. Unfortunately, the prolonged peace that Europe has enjoyed is indeed rare in human history. Many parts of the world have experienced regular armed conflicts, and even today, wars are raging in places like the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Political science as a distinct academic discipline began to take shape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period marked by major political tensions and international conflicts. The experience of the First World War certainly fuelled interest in the systematic study of power, institutions, conflict and cooperation between states. The 20th century was marked by numerous conflicts, including the two world wars, the Cold War, and a multitude of regional wars, civil conflicts and proxy wars. These conflicts shaped the global political order and had a major impact on the development of political science. They have led to the emergence of new theories and approaches, such as realism and liberalism in international relations, which seek to explain the behaviour of states and the dynamics of international conflict. Political science has also been influenced by technological, economic and social developments in the 20th century, such as the emergence of nuclear weapons, the globalisation of the economy, and the civil and human rights movements. All of these factors have helped shape the discipline as we know it today. In short, war and conflict have played a crucial role in the birth and development of political science. They have stimulated thinking about fundamental issues such as power, authority, justice, security and international cooperation, which are at the heart of the discipline.

First, the wars of decolonisation. After the Second World War, a wave of independence swept through many European colonies, leading to a series of wars of decolonisation. These wars were often characterised by power struggles between colonial forces and local nationalist movements. They had a profound impact on the configuration of the post-colonial world order. Second, the Cold War era was marked by the constant threat of nuclear war between the superpowers. This threat was particularly evident in crises such as the Korean War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. These events highlighted the existential risk posed by nuclear weapons and had a significant influence on international politics and political science theories. Finally, after the end of the Cold War, the United Nations played an increasingly important role in the management of international conflicts, notably through peacekeeping missions. However, major conflicts, such as the Gulf Wars and the war in Afghanistan, have revealed the challenges and limitations of international intervention. Each of these phases provides a different context for the study of conflict and war in political science. Changes in the nature of conflict, the actors involved, the technologies used, and international norms and institutions have all influenced the way political scientists approach the study of war and conflict.

The attack of 11 September 2001 marked a turning point in contemporary history and profoundly transformed world politics, particularly with regard to war and terrorism. This tragic event not only led to a war in Afghanistan, but also shaped the way the world views and fights terrorism. The war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks, was an attempt to dismantle al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the attacks, and to overthrow the Taliban regime that was harbouring it. However, the war has had complex and lasting consequences, both for Afghanistan and for world politics. The war in Afghanistan has shown the difficulties associated with fighting terrorism on a global scale. It revealed the challenges of post-conflict state-building, the complexity of counter-insurgency, and the problems associated with the long-term commitment of foreign forces to a country. In addition, the war has also had an impact on the way countries perceive and address the terrorist threat. It has led to changes in national security strategies, surveillance and civil rights legislation, and has influenced public discourse on terrorism and security.

A crucial aspect of the evolution of warfare is the change in the ratio of civilian to military casualties. Modern wars often have a devastating impact on civilian populations, not only in terms of deaths and injuries, but also in terms of displacement, destruction of infrastructure and psychological trauma. In the Solferino War in the 19th century, the victims were mainly military personnel. However, with the First World War, the casualty figures began to change, with an almost equal proportion of military and civilian victims. This trend continued and even worsened during the twentieth century, particularly in the Second World War and in more recent conflicts. This development is due to several factors. First, the escalation of military technology, including weapons of mass destruction, has made conflicts more devastating and less discriminating. Second, military strategies have shifted to increasingly target civilian infrastructure to undermine the enemy's morale and war effort. Finally, many modern conflicts take place within rather than between states, meaning that civilians are often caught in the line of fire. This change has important implications for political science and for the way we think about war. It raises questions about the legitimacy of the use of force, human rights, international humanitarian law and the responsibility to protect civilians in war.

What is war?

The changing nature of warfare has led to significant changes in its economics and in the proportion of civilian casualties. In addition, modern wars tend to last longer, which has profound implications for society and the economy. In the past, the war economy focused primarily on the production of armaments and other goods needed for war. However, as military strategies evolved, the focus shifted to destroying the enemy's production tools to weaken their economy and thus their ability to wage war. This led to an increase in civilian casualties as civilian infrastructure became military targets. In addition, the protracted nature of many modern conflicts has also had an impact on the economics of war. Instead of short-term intensive production to support the war effort, economies now have to deal with the long-term effects of war, such as rebuilding after destruction and supporting the victims of war. These changes have major implications for political science, particularly in relation to issues of human rights, international humanitarian law and military strategy. They also highlight the importance of effective post-conflict peace management to minimise the long-term damage caused by war.

An interesting perspective on war is that it is an extension of political dialogue, albeit in a violent and destructive form. This idea is in fact an interpretation of the famous quote by Carl von Clausewitz, the 19th century Prussian military strategist, who stated that "war is the continuation of politics by other means". According to this perspective, war is not simply a failure of politics, but another form of political dialogue, albeit violent and destructive. It is a time when conflicts and disputes are resolved by force rather than by dialogue or negotiation. In this sense, war can be seen as an "inversion of normality", where violence replaces peace as the primary means of conflict resolution. However, war also has profound and often devastating consequences. It results in the death and suffering of many people, the destruction of property and infrastructure, and can have lasting economic, political and social consequences. Therefore, although it can be seen as an extension of political dialogue, it is crucial to recognise the high human and social costs of war. It is precisely for these reasons that war is an important subject of study in political science. Understanding war, its causes and consequences, can help prevent future conflicts, effectively manage those that do occur and minimise the human and social costs of war.

French philosopher and writer George Bataille's definition of war as "a supreme game" underlines the seriousness and importance of the issues at stake. Compared to a game, war, in this context, is not light entertainment, but rather a strategic and potentially deadly activity that involves everything the participants have, including their lives. Seeing war as a strategic game, however, can have important implications for how we understand and manage it. In a game, there are usually rules to follow, strategies to develop and clearly defined winners and losers. Applying this framework to war can help us think more strategically about the conduct of war, how to minimise its costs and how to manage its consequences.

However, it is also important to note that war differs from ordinary games in several important ways. First, the stakes are infinitely higher - it is not just points or trophies that are at stake, but human lives, societies and entire nations. Second, unlike most games, war is not always clearly delineated with fair and universally accepted rules. Finally, while in most games the goal is to win, in war the ultimate goal should always be to achieve a lasting and just peace. This is why political science, in studying war, seeks not only to understand how wars are won, but also how they can be prevented and how their consequences can be managed to promote peace and justice.

War can be seen as an 'inversion of a system' in the sense that it replaces the usual mechanisms of dialogue, negotiation and conflict resolution with force. In this context, 'dialogue' is not through words, but through acts of violence. This is precisely why war is so devastating and costly, both in terms of human lives and resources. It is also unpredictable, because once the use of force is initiated, it is difficult to control or predict the outcome. It is also for this reason that political science, as well as other disciplines such as international relations, seek to understand the causes of war and to develop strategies to prevent conflict, manage wars when they occur, and restore peace and stability after a conflict. Ultimately, war is a "dialogue through force" that has profound and lasting consequences. Understanding this "dialogue" is essential for promoting peace and security in the world.

War: an object of struggle between state powers

An ancient phenomenon vs. modern inter-state warfare

An ancient phenomenon: historical perspectives

The study of the mythical dimension of war is a fascinating aspect of political science. States and governments often use myths and narratives to justify war, galvanise public support, and give meaning to the violence and sacrifice involved. These myths can take many forms and can be influenced by historical, cultural, religious and political factors. The concept of sacrifice is often central to these war myths. It may be invoked to emphasise the importance of the cause for which one is fighting, to valorise the actions of soldiers, and to help rationalise the human costs of war. Sacrifice can be presented as a patriotic duty, an act of bravery, or a tragic necessity. However, war myths and the discourse of sacrifice can also serve to obscure the true costs and consequences of war, to marginalise dissenting voices, and to avoid critical examination of the motivations and strategies of war. Therefore, it is important to interrogate and critique these myths, and to understand how they are constructed and used. Political science can contribute to this task by examining how war myths are created and maintained, how they influence policy and public perceptions of war, and how they can be challenged or deconstructed. This analysis can help promote a better understanding of war and encourage more reflective and critical approaches to the politics of war.

When a country goes to war, there is often a kind of 'flag rally' where internal political differences are temporarily put aside and a sense of national unity is cultivated. Ideological mobilisation' serves to strengthen social cohesion and facilitate the war effort. This cohesion is often supported by rhetoric that stigmatises dissent. Those who oppose the war, or even criticise it, may be accused of treason, unpatriotism or not supporting the troops. This social pressure can be extremely powerful and can stifle necessary public and critical debate. The example of the response to 9/11 and President George W. Bush's decision to declare a 'war on terror' illustrates this point. Those who questioned this policy were often marginalised or denigrated. Yet, with the benefit of hindsight, many of these criticisms have been validated. The conflict in Afghanistan, for example, proved to be a long and costly engagement that failed to achieve many of its main objectives. This underlines the importance of open and critical public debate in times of war. Political science can play an important role in providing rigorous and independent analyses of war decisions, questioning the underlying assumptions and highlighting the potential costs and consequences of these decisions.

War often has a sublimated character that can obscure rational and analytical judgements. The rhetoric of war can create a sense of urgency and grandeur that encourages binary thinking (us versus them), the glorification of sacrifice, and an increased tolerance for violence. This can lead to decisions based more on emotion than on a rational assessment of costs and benefits. The sublimation of war can also affect the way societies perceive and remember conflicts. Wars can be romanticised or mythologised in order to minimise their darker and more unpleasant aspects. The human and material costs of war can be overlooked, while acts of bravery and sacrifice are emphasised. This is why it is crucial to maintain a critical and rational analysis in wartime. Political scientists and other researchers can help deconstruct the sublimation of war by critically examining war narratives, assessing the real costs of conflict and highlighting alternatives to violence. This approach can help prevent precipitous war decisions and encourage more peaceful and humanitarian policies.

Modern warfare: characteristics and current issues

Banquet of the Amsterdam Civic Guard on the Occasion of the Peace of Münster by Bartholomeus van der Helst, painted in 1648

The Thirty Years' War, which took place mainly in central Europe, is often regarded as a turning point in the history of warfare and diplomacy. Although the war began as a religious conflict within the Holy Roman Empire, it soon involved several major European powers, including France, Sweden, Spain and Denmark, and became a struggle for political and territorial power.

The Thirty Years' War is particularly important in political science for several reasons:

The Treaty of Westphalia: This treaty, signed in 1648, marked the end of the Thirty Years' War and laid the foundations for the modern international order based on the system of sovereign states. This system, often referred to as the Westphalian system, defines the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference, which are still central to international law today.
The transformation of warfare: The Thirty Years' War was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history, marked by widespread violence against civilians and an unprecedented level of destruction. This led to changes in the way war was fought, including the increasing use of standing armies and siege tactics.
The politicisation of religion: Although the war began as a religious conflict, it eventually evolved into a struggle for political power. This marked an important step in the process of secularisation of European politics, where religion became a tool of political legitimisation rather than a driver of conflict.

Ultimately, the Thirty Years' War and the Treaty of Westphalia had a profound impact on the formation of the modern state and the international system, which makes them of great importance for political science.

The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is often regarded as the moment when the concept of state sovereignty was formally recognised in international law. This treaty ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe and established a system of sovereign states, where each state had exclusive control over its territory and population.

State sovereignty has several implications for warfare and international politics:

Interstate wars: In the Westphalian system, war is primarily a matter between states. This means that wars are usually declared by governments, fought by regular armies and governed by international laws and customs.
The role of the nation-state: The idea of the nation-state implies that each state has the right to govern its population without outside interference. This gives states the right to defend their territory and population, which can lead to conflict with other states.
The right to war: State sovereignty also implies the right to declare war and to conclude peace. This means that states have the right to use force to defend their interests, even if they are not able to do so.

Public international law, in particular the law of war, focuses primarily on relations between sovereign states. It establishes a number of rules and principles that govern the behaviour of states in times of war. These rules include:

Modern diplomacy: International law has played a key role in establishing diplomatic norms and procedures, including diplomatic immunity, diplomatic and consular relations, and treaty negotiations.
State sovereignty: The principle of state sovereignty is fundamental to international law. This means that each state has the right to govern its own territory and conduct its international relations as it sees fit, provided it respects the rights of other states.
The declaration of war: Traditionally, international law required a state to formally declare war before commencing hostilities. Although this practice has largely been abandoned, international law still requires states to respect the principles of just war, including proportionality and discrimination between combatants and non-combatants.
The conclusion of war: International law also requires that wars be ended by a peace treaty, which defines the terms of the end of hostilities and establishes a framework for the resolution of remaining disputes. This is important to ensure a peaceful transition to a lasting peace after a conflict.

These rules are essential for maintaining order and stability in the international system. However, their application and observance can vary according to the circumstances, and their violation can have serious consequences, including international sanctions and prosecution for war crimes.

Theorising war: key approaches and thinkers

War, in the context of political science, has long been considered a natural extension of politics itself. This concept has been theorised by several influential thinkers over the centuries, including the famous Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu who wrote "The Art of War", a treatise on military strategy. In the Western context, philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle also considered politics as an "art". For them, politics is the art of governing and making decisions for the good of the city. In this sense, war can be seen as an extreme extension of this 'art', when dialogue and negotiation fail and force becomes the main means of resolving conflicts. From this perspective, war is not only an activity involving military strategies and tactics, but also a domain requiring deep reflection and understanding of political and social issues. For this reason, war is an important subject of study in political science, as it offers valuable insights into how societies deal with conflict, authority and power.

The art of war, as conceptualised by historical figures such as Sun Tzu and Napoleon, is a complex game of strategy that combines respect for certain established norms with innovation and surprise. Napoleon, for example, often circumvented the conventions of war to surprise his enemies and gain a strategic advantage. In doing so, he not only demonstrated military genius, but also underlined the dynamic and unpredictable nature of war. Despite the existence of certain norms and rules, war is often defined by its unpredictability and its ability to exceed established expectations. This complex reality defies attempts to categorise war as a strictly regulated or completely chaotic phenomenon. Instead, war can be better understood as a phenomenon that oscillates between these two extremes, where strategy and surprise constantly coexist and interact.

War, in fact, is framed by a number of norms and rules - whether it be international laws governing conduct in war, bilateral treaties between countries, or unwritten rules of military engagement. These norms provide structure and predictability to warfare, allowing the conflicting parties to predict (to some extent) the actions of the other. However, as you have pointed out, war also involves going beyond these norms. Whether out of necessity, strategy, or desperation, conflicting parties can and often will go beyond the established rules. This can take the form of guerrilla tactics, surprise attacks, the use of prohibited weapons, or even the direct violation of the laws of war. This tension between the norm and going beyond the norm is what makes warfare so unpredictable and, therefore, so difficult to study and understand. For political science and other similar disciplines, this means that we must constantly adapt and re-evaluate our understandings and theories of war to take account of this complex and changing reality.

It is important for the social sciences, and in particular for political science, to recognise and explore this complexity. By treating war not only as a series of strategies and tactics, but also as a broader social, political and cultural phenomenon, scholars can gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the nature of war and its impact on human societies.

War poses major problems in philosophy and raises essential questions about the nature of human culture and consciousness. From a philosophical point of view, war can be analysed on several levels. For example, moral philosophy looks at questions of rightness and ethics in the context of war. What justifies the outbreak of war (jus ad bellum)? How should it be fought (jus in bello)? What are the moral obligations towards non-combatants or prisoners of war? These questions are often discussed in the context of just war theory. War also raises profound questions about the nature of human culture and consciousness. Why do human societies resort to war? How does war influence culture, art, literature and other forms of human expression? How does war affect our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world? Political philosophy, on the other hand, looks at the role of the state and power in war. What is the role of the state in the declaration of war and the conduct of hostilities? What is the role of the citizen in wartime? What is the relationship between war and sovereignty, or war and democracy? These questions are just some of the many ways in which war can be approached philosophically. War, as a social and political phenomenon, is a complex reality that can be analysed and understood in various ways through the lens of philosophy.

War is a phenomenon that goes far beyond military action. It can be analysed from many angles, including political philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, among others. Political philosophy can address issues such as the moral justification of war (the just war theory, for example), the role of the state and sovereignty in conflict, or the impact of war on notions of freedom and human rights. From a sociological point of view, war can be analysed in terms of social interaction, the formation of groups and identities, or the impact on social structure and culture. One can also look at how war affects norms and values, and how it is perceived and understood by those who experience it. Economics can look at the impact of war on the economy (e.g. 'total war' and the war economy), or at the role of economic resources in the conduct and cause of wars. Psychology can look at the impact of war on the human mind, whether in terms of combat stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, or the wider impact of war on attitudes and behaviour. War is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that can be studied from many different angles, each bringing its own perspective and analytical tools.

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645): Natural law and the foundations of just war

Hugo Grotius
Portrait by Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt (1631).

Hugo Grotius, a 17th-century Dutch jurist, is widely recognised as one of the founders of modern international law. His work "De Jure Belli ac Pacis" (On the Law of War and Peace), first published in 1625, remains a major reference in the field. In this text, Grotius laid the foundations for the theory of 'just war', which deals with the morality and legality of engaging in and conducting war. He also laid the foundation for many principles of modern international law, such as national sovereignty and the equality of states. Grotius argued that certain moral principles apply even in times of war. For example, he insisted that non-combatant civilians should be spared as much as possible, and that cruel or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war was unacceptable. These ideas were revolutionary at the time and continue to influence the way we think about war today. The concepts of 'just war' and 'unjust war' are still widely debated in academic, political and military circles. They also play a key role in the development and application of international humanitarian law, which seeks to limit the effects of war and protect those who are most vulnerable in times of conflict.

Hugo Grotius laid the foundations of the law of war, seeking to determine when a war could be considered 'just'. He put forward two types of war that could be justified under international law:

Defensive war: Grotius argued that war waged in defence against external aggression was justified. This idea remains central to contemporary international law, where the right to self-defence is recognised as a fundamental principle.
Coercive war: Grotius also believed that a war could be justified if it was fought to punish those who had violated the law. This is a more controversial idea and more difficult to implement in practice. It raises complex questions about who has the right to judge the violation of the right, and what are the appropriate methods to punish it.

Although Grotius believed that these types of warfare could be justified, he also emphasised the importance of observing certain rules and ethical norms during the conduct of warfare, such as the prohibition of deliberately attacking non-combatants.

Grotius established that some forms of warfare were illegitimate and unjust. In particular, he opposed wars of conquest. According to him, a nation state has no right to wage war with the aim of annexing or conquering other states. This principle is fundamental in contemporary international law, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force. Although these principles were formulated centuries ago, they are still widely accepted today. The United Nations Charter, for example, explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Such principles continue to guide the way international conflicts are managed and resolved.

For Hugo Grotius, the law of war and the law of peace are intimately linked. Indeed, the conception of war as a phenomenon that must be governed by certain legal rules and principles also suggests that there are certain conditions that must be met in order to achieve a just and lasting peace. According to Grotius, an aggressor who violates the principles of the law of war must be held accountable. This could include sanctions or other forms of repercussions from other states. In this way, the law of war also serves to define and promote justice in peacetime. These ideas continue to be influential in contemporary international law. For example, the concept of the 'responsibility to protect' suggests that the international community has a duty to intervene when a state grossly violates the rights of its own citizens. Finally, it is interesting to note that Grotius' work laid the foundations for the later development of international humanitarian law, which seeks to limit the effects of war on people and property.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): The state of nature and war as a state of permanent conflict

The Leviathan, or Treatise on the Matter, Form, and Power of an Ecclesiastical and Civil Republic, 1651.

In his work "The Leviathan", Thomas Hobbes offers a reflection on human nature and the state of nature which, according to him, is a state of perpetual war of all against all ("bellum omnium contra omnes"). According to Hobbes, without a strong central authority to maintain order, human life would be "lonely, poor, unpleasant, brutish and short". In Hobbes' state of nature, individuals are motivated by their own interests and fears. Competition for limited resources, distrust and the desire to gain reputation can lead to a state of constant conflict. To escape this state of war, Hobbes argues that individuals enter into a social contract whereby they give up some of their freedom to a sovereign, whom Hobbes calls Leviathan. The role of this sovereign is to maintain peace and order by exercising unquestionable authority. These ideas of Hobbes have had an important influence on modern political theory and statecraft. They emphasise the importance of a strong central power to prevent conflict and guarantee the security of citizens.

For Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is marked by chaos and uncertainty. According to him, in this state, individuals are free but also constantly in danger because there is no law or central authority to regulate their behaviour. In the state of nature, individuals are guided by their own interests and by the fear of death. Their absolute freedom is therefore accompanied by constant competition for resources and security. This creates an unstable situation where danger and conflict are omnipresent - a situation Hobbes describes as a 'war of all against all'. To avoid this chaos, Hobbes proposes the idea of a social contract whereby individuals voluntarily surrender some of their freedom to an absolute sovereign. In exchange, this sovereign provides them with security and order, which is preferable to the uncertainty and violence of the state of nature.

For Hobbes, the state is the guarantor of social peace, an institution necessary to avoid the 'war of all against all' that prevails in the state of nature. According to Hobbes, the state is based on a social contract, a form of agreement to which individuals consent to escape the chaos of the state of nature. In this contract, individuals agree to give up some of their freedoms and submit their will to that of the sovereign. In return, the sovereign is responsible for maintaining order, ensuring the safety of individuals and preserving the peace. For Hobbes, the authority of the sovereign is absolute and indivisible, as this is the only way to ensure peace and prevent a return to the state of nature. This view has had a major influence on political theory and continues to be debated today. For example, it raises questions about the right balance between security and liberty, or the role and limits of state power.

For Hobbes, one of the main responsibilities of the sovereign is to maintain the peace and security of society. To do this, the sovereign has the right to raise an army and to exercise force if necessary. Hobbes sees the army as a necessary institution to protect society against external and internal threats. Without a military force to ensure security, Hobbes believes that society would risk falling back into the state of nature, where there is a "war of all against all". However, Hobbes also warns against the dangers of the abuse of military power by the sovereign. He emphasises the importance of the social contract, in which the sovereign is obliged to respect the rights and liberties of individuals in exchange for their obedience.

It is also important to note that Hobbes was writing in a specific historical context, that of seventeenth-century England, which was marked by civil war. His political theory therefore reflects the concerns of his time, but continues to generate important discussions in contemporary political philosophy.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): Towards perpetual peace and the legitimacy of defensive wars

Immanuel Kant, in his essay "Project of Perpetual Peace" (1795), asks how a lasting peace between nations can be achieved. His work on this subject has greatly influenced political philosophy and theories of international law. Kant proposes several ideas for achieving 'perpetual peace'. The first is that the "republican constitution" is the most peaceful government, because it gives the people the power to decide whether to go to war or not, and the people, being the ones who suffer the consequences of war, are less likely to choose it. The second idea is the 'federation of free nations', a kind of league of nations, where states retain their sovereignty but agree to adhere to a common set of international laws to prevent conflict. Finally, Kant argued that perpetual peace can only be achieved when universal human rights are respected, which implies equal rights for all individuals, regardless of their nationality.

Immanuel Kant argued that peace cannot be based on emotion or affect. Instead, it must be based on rationality. For him, it is reason, not emotion, that can motivate people to seek and accept peace. This approach is fundamentally moral, as it requires individuals to put the common good ahead of their own self-interest. According to this vision, true peace can only be achieved when individuals and nations adopt a rational approach, pooling their differences and working together for the common good. This vision implies a certain mutualisation of differences and conflicts: instead of seeking to impose its own will by force, each side should seek to understand and respect the perspectives of the others. This is what Kant meant by a 'federation of free nations'. Ultimately, Kant's idea is that perpetual peace is not a mere dream or romantic idea, but a goal that can be achieved by rational and moral means. This idea has had a great influence on modern theories of international justice and on the design of international institutions.

Portrait of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant argued for the invention of an international law of peace, recognising the need to manage power relations between nations. He advocated that this regulation is indispensable because wars are inevitable. Kant's major contribution lies in his assertion that the public international law to be constructed should not be based on the principle of the 'right of the strongest'. Instead, it must be fundamentally distinct and aim at peace rather than war. That is to say, international law should not simply serve to justify conflicts or to regulate their course, but rather to prevent them and to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes. This law of peace is based on the recognition of the sovereign equality of states and respect for human rights, both of which are essential to prevent war and promote peace. It is in this respect that Kant's approach was revolutionary and laid the foundation for contemporary international law, which emphasises the prevention of conflict and the promotion of lasting peace.

Immanuel Kant, in his essay "Project of Perpetual Peace", presented a plan for establishing peace and avoiding wars. It is structured in three levels:

Law of internal politics: According to Kant, in order to achieve lasting peace, every state must adopt a republican constitution. In other words, a democratic government that respects human rights and the law must be ensured. This would help to resolve internal conflicts in a peaceful and democratic manner.
Interfederal/inter-state international law: Once peace is established within states, it can be extended to all international relations. To this end, Kant proposes the creation of a 'federation of free nations', which would be a group of states united by mutual peace treaties and committed to resolving their disputes non-violently.
International law of hospitality: This level represents Kant's cosmopolitan vision. It is a principle that implies respect for foreigners and the possibility of peaceful relations with them. According to Kant, every individual has the right to visit another country, as long as he or she behaves peacefully, and every country has the duty to welcome foreign visitors. This principle establishes the basis for a cosmopolitan international law.

Thus, the Kantian vision of perpetual peace is based on a multiscalar approach that requires both internal (national) and external (international) changes. It is a view that continues to influence contemporary debates on international law and world peace.

Kant's philosophy is fundamentally about freedom and respect for human rights. He saw war as the ultimate result of political systems that deny freedom, violate human rights and are dominated by autocratic or dictatorial authorities. For Kant, lasting peace can only be achieved by building political systems that respect human rights and are democratic and republican. The concept of 'limited sovereignty' is a key element of this vision, as it implies that even if a state is sovereign, it should not have the right to oppress its population or violate human rights. Furthermore, in order to avoid conflicts between states, Kant proposed the idea of a 'federation of free nations'. According to this idea, sovereign states must freely agree to limit their actions and respect international law in order to maintain world peace. Thus, Kant's philosophy puts forward the idea that peace can only be guaranteed through adherence to democratic principles, respect for human rights, and international cooperation within the framework of international law respected by all.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831): The Dialectic of War and Historical Progress

Portrait of Hegel by Schlesinger (1831).

For Hegel, war is a phenomenon that is deeply rooted in human nature and the dynamics of history. It is the result of historical dialectics and the interaction of thesis and antithesis, where war acts as an agent of change and progression in history. Hegel sees war as a moment in the manifestation of the national will. According to him, it is a moment when national consciousness is strengthened and crystallised. War can be seen as an expression of the free and subjective will of the nation, i.e. as an extension of the nation's will to assert and preserve its existence. However, war, for Hegel, is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a necessary and tragic stage in human history, which ultimately leads to greater self-awareness and freedom. Thus, despite the chaos and destruction it brings, war is also a means to advance history towards a fuller realisation of human freedom.

According to Hegelian philosophy, war has an essential role to play in the affirmation of individual subjectivity and in the evolution of human history. Hegel argues that war, destructive as it is, plays a crucial role in the consolidation of a community, as it forces individuals to unite their efforts to survive. Paradoxically, war can also help to forge a stronger national or collective identity, as it creates a common 'other' against which a community must fight. From this perspective, war can be seen as a factor of social and political cohesion. War, as a confrontation of the human will, also allows individuals to face their mortality and to define themselves in opposition to death. It is in this sense that Hegel claims that war is an affirmation of subjectivity. Nevertheless, although Hegel sees a role for war in the development of human history, this does not mean that he glorifies or promotes it. On the contrary, for Hegel, war is a tragic manifestation of the contradictions of human history, a contradiction that can ultimately lead to a greater realisation of human freedom.

René Girard, a French philosopher and anthropologist, developed a theory known as the 'scapegoat theory' to explain human violence. According to Girard, social conflicts arise because of mimetic rivalry - a desire to possess the same things as others, which becomes contagious within a society. As tensions rise, society seeks to restore order by turning against a 'scapegoat' - usually a marginalised person or group. By coming together to punish the scapegoat, the community is able to channel its violence and restore a sense of social cohesion.

Girard also applied his theory to war, arguing that war can play the same role as scapegoating in reconciling social tensions. Like Hegel, Girard sees war as a means by which a community can sublimate its internal differences to face a common external threat. Nevertheless, Girard's perspective, like Hegel's, does not constitute a justification of war. Instead, it offers an analysis of how violence can become a means of establishing social order, while highlighting the tragic human cost of this dynamic.

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527): Political realism and the strategies of war

Posthumous portrait of Machiavelli by Santi di Tito, in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence.

Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian Renaissance politician and writer, is known for his work The Prince, which is often considered a pragmatic guide to political leadership. In it he depicts the exercise of power, not as it should be according to ideal or ethical principles, but as it actually is in practice. In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that rulers must be prepared to act immorally if necessary to maintain their power and ensure the stability of their state. For example, he suggests that although it is better for a prince to be loved and feared, if he has to choose between the two, it is safer to be feared. On war, Machiavelli takes a very realistic approach. He insists that rulers must always be prepared for war and be ready to wage it if necessary. For him, war is a political tool, necessary to maintain and expand power. Machiavelli was also a strong advocate of citizen militias, as you mentioned. He believed that citizens who had a vested interest in the defence of their homeland would make better soldiers than mercenaries or troops raised abroad. This idea is reflected in his other major work, Discourse on the First Decade of Titus Livius.

Machiavelli is famous for his statement that 'the end justifies the means'. This means that he believed that a leader's actions can be justified by the results they produce, even if those actions are in themselves morally reprehensible. Machiavelli believed that politics and morality were separate domains. In politics, he argued that the success and survival of the state were the most important goals. Therefore, a leader might have to make difficult, even immoral, decisions to achieve these goals. War, for example, is considered immoral by many, but for Machiavelli it could be justified if it was necessary to protect the state. Furthermore, Machiavelli considered the art of war to be an essential skill for a leader. He argued that a prince who neglects the art of war puts his kingdom and his own security at risk. According to him, even in times of peace, a leader

The adjective 'Machiavellian' is often used to describe a person who is prepared to use deceptive or immoral means to achieve his or her goals. It is a reference to Machiavelli's idea that "the end justifies the means". This means that, for a Machiavellian person, the goal is more important than the actions taken to achieve it. So it does not matter if the actions are deceitful, dishonest, or even cruel, as long as they achieve the goal. This is a rather negative and simplified interpretation of Machiavelli's philosophy. His writings were much more complex and nuanced, and he did not necessarily advocate immoral behaviour in all circumstances. However, this is how his name is often used in everyday language.

Niccolò Machiavelli, in his work "The Prince", emphasises the importance of war for a ruler. For him, the ideal leader must always be ready for war, both in terms of physical and mental preparation. Machiavelli does not glorify war per se, but considers the art of war to be a necessary skill for any good ruler. He argues that one of the main roles of a ruler is to protect the state and its citizens, which may require the use of war. Machiavelli was writing in a historical context where Italy was divided into many city-states that were often in conflict. Consequently, war was a daily and inevitable reality. However, this does not mean that he values war as such, but rather that he recognises and analyses the role that war plays in politics. Nevertheless, these perspectives have often been misinterpreted or simplified over the centuries, leading to a perception of Machiavelli as an unscrupulous strategist advocating the use of war for personal or political gain.

Antoine-Henri de Jomini (1779-1869): Military strategy and principles of war

Antoine-Henri Jomini was a Swiss general and military theorist who lived from 1779 to 1869. Jomini served in Napoleon's armies and later joined the Russian army. He is best known for his writings on military strategy and tactics. His best-known work, "Précis de l'art de la guerre" (1838), is considered one of the founding texts of modern military strategy. In it, Jomini set out his ideas on the fundamental principles of warfare, including the importance of concentration of forces, speed of action and freedom of manoeuvre. Jomini also identified what he considered to be the key elements of good military strategy: attacking the enemy where he is weakest, concentrating forces on a decisive point, freedom of manoeuvre and a clear and effective chain of command. Jomini's theories influenced many military strategists during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and his work continues to be studied in military academies around the world.

Antoine-Henri Jomini is widely recognised as one of the most influential theorists of military strategy. In his "Précis de l'art de la guerre", he defines strategy as the art of properly directing the mass of armed forces, concentrating them on a decisive point. For Jomini, strategy is about determining when, where and with what force to attack the enemy. It is a matter of planning and preparation that requires a thorough knowledge of geography, logistics and available resources. Jomini identified several basic principles for the effective conduct of warfare, including the concentration of forces on a decisive point, speed of action, and economy of forces. He also introduced the concept of the 'line of operations', which is the most direct and secure route between an army and its supply base, and emphasised the importance of logistics in the success of military operations.

The following elements are all part of the art of war in the broadest sense. They reflect several crucial aspects of military strategy and tactics.

Troop positioning: where and how forces are deployed on the ground can have a significant impact on the success of a military campaign. Commanders must take into account the terrain, communication and supply routes, and the enemy's position.
In situ force analysis: understanding the strengths and weaknesses of one's own troops and those of the enemy is crucial to planning an effective strategy.
How to attack weaknesses: identifying and exploiting enemy weaknesses is a fundamental part of military strategy.
Tactical conditions for pursuing the enemy: after a victory, it may be advantageous to pursue the enemy to maximise disorder and minimise their ability to regroup and counter-attack.
Controlling movement: controlling the movement of one's own troops and, where possible, those of the enemy, is another key aspect of military strategy.
Incorporating the concept of mobility and surprise: the ability to move quickly and surprise the enemy can often be a decisive factor in war.
Ruse, such as false attacks, the appearance of stalling and counter-attacks: using deception to disorient and destabilise the enemy can also be an effective tactic.

All of these aspects are essential to understanding and conducting an effective military campaign.

Jomini's ideas on military strategy were formulated in the context of the Napoleonic wars, and were influenced by observation of Napoleon's campaigns. They continue to be studied and applied in contemporary military theories.

Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831): The political nature of war and the trinity of violence

Carl von Clausewitz, in his famous work "On War", argues that "war is the continuation of politics by other means". For him, war is never an end in itself, but a tool that states use to achieve political goals. It is a means to force the enemy to accept the will of the state.

The issue of 'endless wars', such as the one waged by the United States in Afghanistan for two decades, is often seen as a sign of failure to define and achieve clear political objectives. This can be due to a number of factors, such as shifting political objectives, overly ambitious or ill-defined goals, or unforeseen obstacles to achieving these goals. It is also important to remember that Clausewitz's perspective on war is essentially that of conventional interstate conflict. Many modern conflicts involve non-state actors, such as terrorist groups or militias, and may be influenced by factors such as ethnic or religious divisions, which do not easily fit into the framework of war as politics by other means. These wars can seem 'endless' because they are not fought to achieve clear political objectives, but rather are the result of deep social divisions, inequality, poverty, and other structural factors.

The Westphalian system, established by the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648, is based on the principle of the sovereignty of nation states. In this system, war is traditionally seen as a means of resolving conflicts between states in order to restore peace. When we speak of 'endless war', this usually refers to conflicts that do not seem to be heading towards a peaceful resolution. This may be due to a multitude of reasons, such as ill-defined political objectives, the absence of a clearly defined enemy (as in the case of the 'war on terror'), unforeseen obstacles to peace, or conflicts that are beyond the control of states. The idea that "the time of war is a time of reversal to return to peace" reflects the belief that war is a temporary and exceptional state, and that the final objective must always be the restoration of peace. It emphasises the importance of diplomatic engagement, negotiation and compromise to resolve conflicts.

Carl von Clausewitz.

In the spirit of Westphalian warfare, war is subordinate to politics. Clausewitz's famous quote "war is the continuation of politics by other means" emphasises that war is a tool used by states to achieve their political goals. He saw war as a rational action, directed and controlled by the state, to achieve specific political objectives. However, in today's context, the idea that war is waged under the control and instigation of the state is sometimes questioned. Indeed, with the emergence of non-state groups, asymmetric conflicts, transnational terrorism and cyber attacks, war is no longer limited to states. In these cases, an end to hostilities may be more difficult to achieve, as the actors involved may not have clear or shared political objectives that could be resolved through negotiation or diplomacy. In addition, the absence of stable state or institutional structures in some areas may hinder the conclusion of the war. In such contexts, war can become a perpetual state, with fluctuating levels of violence, rather than a temporary "parenthesis".

Conflicts in areas such as Darfur have often resulted in a form of privatisation of war, where the traditional role of the state in the conduct of war is replaced or supplemented by a multitude of non-state actors. This can include local militias, rebel groups, private military companies and even international actors. One consequence of this development is the fragmentation of authority and sovereignty. Instead of a central state controlling the whole territory and exercising a monopoly of legitimate violence, there is a multitude of actors controlling different parts of the territory and carrying out violent actions independently of each other. This greatly complicates efforts to end the war and achieve a lasting peace. It is difficult to reach a peace agreement when many actors have conflicting claims and there is no central authority to enforce or guarantee the agreement. Moreover, the privatisation of war can lead to high levels of violence, particularly against civilians, as non-state actors may not respect the laws of war in the same way as states. In this context, traditional approaches to conflict resolution may not be sufficient. More complex and nuanced approaches may be required, which take into account the multitude of actors involved and their divergent interests and motivations. This may include efforts to strengthen local governance, promote community reconciliation and ensure accountability for human rights violations.

Clausewitz's idea that "war is the continuation of politics by other means" means that war is fundamentally a political tool. It is used to achieve political goals that diplomatic methods have failed to achieve. Therefore, the end of war implies a return to political means to resolve conflicts. This perspective underlines the importance of political governance in conflict management and in the transition from war to peace. If politics cannot regain the upper hand, conflict can drag on and war can become a permanent state. This can happen in so-called 'failed states', where political institutions are too weak to impose order and resolve conflicts peacefully. It can also happen in situations where the parties to the conflict have lost confidence in the political mechanisms and no longer believe in the possibility of a peaceful resolution. The war thus continues until a political solution is found - be it through peace negotiations, international mediation, or the establishment of new political structures. In this sense, Clausewitz emphasises the crucial importance of politics in resolving conflicts and bringing about peace.

Clausewitz emphasised the paramount importance of maintaining political control over military action. For him, war is a tool that politics can and must use to achieve its objectives. It is the politician who gives war its purpose and raison d'être, and therefore determines when it begins, when it ends, and how it is fought. When war gets out of political control, the consequences can be catastrophic. We risk sliding into a state of perpetual conflict, where violence and chaos reign, and the logic of war replaces the logic of politics. This kind of situation is often observed in areas of protracted conflict, where political institutions are weak or absent, and where war becomes a way of life rather than a means to achieve specific political goals. This is why it is so crucial for politics to maintain control over war. Without effective political control, war can become autonomous and uncontrollable, with devastating consequences for society and humanity.

This is an interesting and sometimes paradoxical perspective. In some situations, war can actually be used as a negotiating tool. When political dialogue fails or is blocked, war can create a new dynamic and force parties to reconsider their positions. For example, one party may use the threat or use of force to increase its negotiating position and push its opponents to make concessions. In addition, war can sometimes expose difficult truths and reveal deep-rooted problems that need to be resolved to achieve a lasting peace. Conflicts can highlight inequalities, abuses of power and injustices that have been ignored or hidden, paving the way for their resolution through a peace process.

Maurice Davie (1893-1964): Contemporary transformations of war and new challenges

Maurice R. Davie is a sociologist renowned for his work on war and conflict in human societies. In his 1930 article "The Evolution of War", Davie investigates the origin of war in primitive societies.

He identifies several causes for which these societies might go to war:

Vital competition for group survival: In an environment where resources are limited, groups may come into conflict over food, water, territory and other vital resources. These wars were often a matter of survival, with the winning group guaranteeing access to these resources.
Religious disputes: Religious beliefs were often deeply rooted in primitive societies, and any conflict in interpretations or beliefs could lead to war. In addition, in some cultures there was a belief that victory in war was evidence of divine favouritism, which could further encourage conflict.
Blood revenge: In many early cultures, an offence against a group member was often avenged by murder or war. This cycle of revenge could lead to a series of conflicts that are perpetuated over time.
Glory: In some societies, glory and honour gained through battle was highly valued. Warriors might seek war in order to gain higher social status and prestige.

While these factors may have played a role in primitive societies, they are also present in many contemporary conflicts.

Marvin Harris (1927-2001): Anthropological approaches to war and its socio-cultural motivations

Marvin Harris.

Marvin Harris (1927-2001) was an American anthropologist and a leading figure in the development of cultural materialism, a theoretical framework that explains cultural practices in terms of practical problems of human existence, such as the production of food and other material goods, rather than in terms of abstract ideas or values.

Harris is well known for his work in explaining social phenomena using a materialist approach. He argued that societal characteristics such as social structure, culture and even religious beliefs are largely shaped by practical considerations, particularly those related to subsistence and economics. Harris' best-known works include "The Rise of Anthropological Theory" (1968), "Cannibals and Kings" (1977) and "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture" (1974). In these and other books, he explores a wide range of topics - from the sacred status of cows in India to the practice of cannibalism in prehistoric societies - always with the aim of showing how cultural practices that may seem strange or irrational are in fact sensible adaptations to material conditions. Harris's work has been highly influential and continues to be widely read and debated in the field of anthropology.

Marvin Harris proposed in his 1974 book, "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture", several theories concerning the origin of war in primitive societies.

War as solidarity: Harris suggests that war can serve as a means of strengthening group solidarity and identity. In a conflict situation, individuals in a group can feel more united, which strengthens the legitimacy of the group.
War as play: This theory proposes that war can have a playful dimension in some primitive societies. In fact, in many cultures, war games or games that imitate combat are common. One can think of modern sports activities that can be seen as a continuation of this "playful" dimension of war.
War is human nature: This theory proposes that war is an inevitable aspect of human nature. It suggests that conflict and confrontation are part of human nature and that war is simply an extension of that nature.
War as a continuation of politics: This theory is similar to that proposed by Clausewitz, according to which war is a continuation of politics by other means. In this case, war is seen as a political tool used to achieve political goals.

It is important to note that these theories are not mutually exclusive and that they may all play a role in the origin of war in early societies.

War and peace: an object of law and international governance

The Law of War or Hague Law

The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, marked the end of the Thirty Years' War in Europe. It also laid the foundations for the modern international system of sovereign states. The treaty recognised that each state had the right to govern its territory without external interference, an idea that is now fundamental to international law.

The 'Law of the Hague' refers to a series of international conventions that were negotiated in The Hague, the Netherlands, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These conventions established rules for the conduct of war, including the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians. They form an important part of international humanitarian law.

The attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan in December 1941 was considered a flagrant breach of the rules of war, as it was launched without a prior declaration of war. This attack led to the entry of the United States into the Second World War. Subsequently, at the Tokyo Trials (the Pacific equivalent of the Nuremberg Trials), several Japanese leaders and military personnel were convicted of war crimes committed during the war, including the attack on Pearl Harbor.

International humanitarian law (IHL), often referred to as the law of war, sets out specific rules to be observed in wartime. It defines what is permitted and what is prohibited during armed conflict, regardless of the motive for the conflict. Some of the main obligations are

Distinction: parties to a conflict must always distinguish between combatants and civilians. Attacks may only be directed against combatants and military objectives, never against civilians or civilian objects.
Proportionality: even in a legitimate attack against a military target, it is prohibited to launch an attack which may cause excessive civilian casualties in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Precaution: all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or minimise civilian casualties in an attack on a military target.

IHL also offers special protection to persons who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities, such as prisoners of war and the wounded. They have the right to be treated humanely, without discrimination. It is important to note that IHL applies to all parties to a conflict, regardless of the reason for the conflict or who is considered "just" or "unjust".

International humanitarian law (IHL) sets limits on the conduct of war and provides sanctions for those who violate these rules. For example, IHL explicitly prohibits the use of chemical or biological weapons, the use of bullets that expand or deform easily in the human body, and any attack that would cause excessive damage to civilians or the natural environment. In addition, countries that violate these rules can be held accountable for their actions. This may involve economic sanctions, diplomatic restrictions or even legal action. Individuals can also be held accountable for their actions during armed conflict and can be prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The UN Security Council plays an important role in the implementation of IHL. It has the ability to impose sanctions, recommend military action and refer cases to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution.

International humanitarian law or Geneva law

International humanitarian law (IHL), often referred to as Geneva law, aims primarily to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, including civilians, the wounded, the sick and prisoners of war. It also aims to restrict the use of certain methods and means of warfare. It derives mainly from the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, which laid down rules for the protection of non-combatants in wartime. For example, the Geneva Conventions establish rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibit the use of torture, and protect civilians in the event of military occupation. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) plays a key role in the promotion and implementation of IHL. It is partly due to the initiative of this organisation that IHL exists today.

Distinctions between civilians and combatants, as well as between combatants and prisoners of war, are key elements of IHL. These distinctions are essential to protect those who are not (or are no longer) directly participating in hostilities.

Combatants are those members of the armed forces of a party to a conflict who are directly participating in hostilities. Combatants have the right to participate directly in hostilities, which means that they cannot be prosecuted for taking part in the fighting. However, they are also legitimate targets for the other side.
Civilians are those who are not directly participating in hostilities. They are protected from attack unless and until they take a direct part in hostilities.
Prisoners of war are combatants who have been captured by the enemy. They are entitled to a number of protections under the Third Geneva Convention, including the right not to be tortured, the right to correspond with their families, and the right not to be prosecuted for their legitimate participation in hostilities.

Respect for these distinctions is essential to reduce unnecessary suffering in wartime.

In theory, the end of a war is often determined by a peace treaty or ceasefire agreement, but there is no clear international legal framework governing how a conflict should end. The notion of "jus post bellum", or law after war, is an emerging concept in international law that seeks to establish ethical and legal principles for the transition from war to peace. It includes issues such as the responsibility to rebuild after conflict, the trial and punishment of war crimes, and the restoration of human rights and the rule of law. The idea is to ensure a just and sustainable transition to peace, while taking into account the rights of victims and the needs of post-conflict societies. However, in 2023, there is still no international consensus on what "jus post bellum" should be, and it remains an active area of research and debate.

There are two fundamental concepts that underpin the whole of international security governance and international law.

Universality suggests that certain norms and principles are applicable to all, regardless of culture, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. This is particularly relevant to the rights of the individual and the rights of the state. This is particularly relevant for human rights, which are considered universal and inalienable.

The idea of humanity means that all human beings belong to a global community and share a certain dignity and fundamental rights. It also means that certain acts are so grave and inhumane that they constitute an attack on the human community as a whole. These acts may include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture.

These concepts provide a basis for international humanitarian law, which protects individuals in times of war, and international criminal law, which allows for the prosecution and conviction of individuals responsible for serious violations of these norms.

After the First World War, the League of Nations was established with the aim of maintaining international peace and security by promoting dialogue and cooperation between nations. However, the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the Second World War led to its dissolution and the creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945. The UN, with its Security Council, has become the primary institution for resolving conflicts and promoting peace internationally. The Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, and has the capacity to take legally binding decisions. The concepts of peacekeeping and peacemaking have also been introduced. UN peacekeeping operations involve the deployment of troops, military observers or civilian police to help maintain peace and security in conflict areas. Peacemaking, on the other hand, aims to resolve conflicts through mediation, negotiation and other peaceful means. These initiatives and institutions, while sometimes criticised for their ineffectiveness or lack of coercive power, represent important efforts to promote universality and humanity in the international system.

Les guerres des partisans : une nouvelle réalité

Ce type de guerre est souvent une réponse à une force militaire supérieure, où les forces conventionnelles ne pourraient pas s'opposer efficacement à l'ennemi. Les partisans ont souvent l'avantage du terrain et de la connaissance locale, ce qui leur permet de se déplacer et de se cacher efficacement. Cependant, leurs actions peuvent aussi mener à des représailles sévères contre les populations civiles par les forces qu'ils combattent. La guerre de partisans est caractérisée par des tactiques de guérilla qui reposent sur une connaissance profonde du terrain, sur la mobilité, la surprise et l'initiative. Par rapport aux forces conventionnelles, les partisans ne se battent pas dans le but de tenir des positions ou de contrôler des territoires, mais plutôt de désorganiser, de harceler et d'affaiblir l'ennemi.

Les tactiques utilisées en guerre de partisans peuvent inclure :

Les attaques en rafale : Les partisans lancent des attaques rapides et soudaines contre l'ennemi, souvent depuis des positions cachées, puis se retirent rapidement avant que l'ennemi ne puisse réagir efficacement.
Les embuscades : Les partisans peuvent tendre des pièges à l'ennemi, utilisant le terrain et la surprise pour infliger des pertes maximales.
Le sabotage : Les partisans peuvent cibler les infrastructures de l'ennemi, comme les lignes de communication, les dépôts de munitions, les voies de transport, etc., pour perturber ses opérations.
La collecte de renseignements : Les partisans peuvent recueillir des informations sur les mouvements et les intentions de l'ennemi et les transmettre à des alliés.

Ces tactiques, combinées à l'avantage que les partisans ont souvent en matière de soutien local et de connaissance du terrain, peuvent leur permettre de mener une guerre efficace contre une force ennemie plus grande et mieux équipée.

Des exemples notables de guerres de partisans incluent la résistance française contre l'occupation allemande pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, la guérilla vietnamienne pendant la guerre du Vietnam, ou encore les mouvements de résistance en Afghanistan contre les occupations soviétiques puis américaines. La guerre de partisans est généralement caractérisée par son asymétrie, c'est-à-dire le fait que les forces en présence ne sont pas équivalentes en termes de capacités militaires. Cela oblige les partisans à recourir à des tactiques non conventionnelles pour compenser leur infériorité numérique ou technologique.

La guerre de partisans a transformé la nature du conflit armé, déplaçant le centre d'intérêt de l'État vers l'individu ou des groupes non étatiques. Cela représente un changement majeur dans la façon dont la guerre est conceptualisée et menée. Dans les conflits traditionnels, la guerre était souvent comprise comme un affrontement entre États, avec des armées régulières menées par des commandants en chef, se battant sur des champs de bataille bien définis. Cela s'est transformé avec l'émergence de la guerre de partisans, où de petits groupes ou des individus, souvent sans commandement centralisé, mènent des attaques irrégulières et dispersées. Cela a conduit à des changements importants dans les stratégies militaires, nécessitant une réflexion plus centrée sur la façon de traiter des cibles non étatiques et souvent mobiles, ainsi que sur la manière de gérer les populations locales et le territoire. Cela a également soulevé des questions sur les règles et les normes qui régissent la conduite en temps de guerre, car les conflits de partisans ne s'inscrivent souvent pas facilement dans le cadre du droit de la guerre traditionnel. En outre, l'apparition de la guerre de partisans a également modifié la nature du pouvoir et de la politique en temps de guerre. Les partisans peuvent souvent mobiliser le soutien local d'une manière que les forces armées régulières ne peuvent pas, leur permettant d'exercer une influence politique importante, même s'ils ne contrôlent pas un territoire ou un État de manière formelle.

Une nouveauté : la guerre du partisan

Le terme "partisan" est souvent utilisé pour décrire une personne qui choisit de prendre les armes et de combattre pour une cause spécifique, en dehors de la structure d'une armée régulière ou officielle.

Dans le contexte d'une guerre ou d'un conflit, les partisans sont généralement associés à des groupes de résistance ou à des mouvements de guérilla. Ils sont souvent motivés par des convictions idéologiques, politiques, religieuses ou nationalistes, et ils peuvent choisir de combattre pour diverses raisons, qu'il s'agisse de la défense de leur communauté, de la résistance à une occupation étrangère, de la révolte contre un régime oppressif, ou de la promotion d'une cause spécifique.

Les partisans utilisent généralement des tactiques de guerre asymétrique, y compris la guérilla, le sabotage, l'espionnage, et d'autres formes de guerre non conventionnelle. Parce qu'ils ne font pas partie d'une armée régulière, ils ne sont généralement pas protégés par les mêmes conventions et lois qui régissent le comportement des soldats en temps de guerre, ce qui peut parfois conduire à des controverses sur leurs droits et leurs protections en vertu du droit international humanitaire.

Aymon de Gingins-La-Sarraz (1780 - 1840) : pionnier de la guerre des partisans

Charles-Jules Guiguer de Prangins, plus connu sous le pseudonyme de Gingins-La Sarraz, était en effet un officier suisse qui a beaucoup contribué à l'élaboration de la stratégie défensive de la Suisse au 19e siècle.

Dans son ouvrage "La guerre défensive en Suisse", Gingins-La Sarraz a mis en avant l'idée que la Suisse, en raison de sa situation géographique, de son relief montagneux et de sa politique de neutralité, devait se concentrer sur le développement d'une stratégie de défense solide plutôt que sur la projection de la force militaire à l'extérieur de ses frontières. Cette approche, selon lui, assurerait le maintien de la neutralité suisse face aux ambitions expansionnistes des grandes puissances européennes de l'époque.

Une partie centrale de cette stratégie de défense était l'idée de former et de mobiliser des partisans en cas d'agression étrangère. Ces partisans, qui seraient des citoyens ordinaires formés au combat et à la survie, constitueraient une force de résistance capable de harceler et de perturber les forces d'invasion, rendant ainsi l'occupation de la Suisse trop coûteuse et difficile pour être réalisable. Cette stratégie s'appuie sur l'idée que la défense de la Suisse ne repose pas seulement sur son armée régulière, mais aussi sur sa population dans son ensemble, ce qui reflète les principes de démocratie directe et de milice qui sont au cœur de la politique suisse.

Gingins-La Sarraz a suggéré le principe suivant pour la défense de la Suisse. En plus de l'armée régulière, le recours aux partisans – des citoyens formés aux tactiques de la guérilla et capables de mobilisation rapide – permettrait de renforcer les capacités défensives du pays. Ces partisans pourraient combler les lacunes des forces régulières en nombre et en flexibilité. Dans une situation de guerre, ils pourraient harceler l'ennemi, perturber ses lignes de communication et d'approvisionnement, et mener des attaques de guérilla qui rendraient toute occupation étrangère difficile et coûteuse. De plus, ces partisans, en étant intégrés dans la population, rendraient la distinction entre civils et combattants difficile pour l'ennemi, ajoutant une autre couche de complexité à toute tentative d'invasion. C'est une stratégie qui reflète le pragmatisme suisse et l'importance qu'il accorde à la neutralité et à la sécurité nationale.

La guerre partisane est souvent une stratégie de résistance face à une occupation ou une invasion étrangère. Les groupes irréguliers, ou partisans, sont typiquement des civils qui ont pris les armes pour résister à une force extérieure. Ils utilisent souvent des tactiques de guérilla, y compris le sabotage, les embuscades, les raids et les attaques-surprise, qui peuvent être extrêmement efficaces contre une force d'invasion conventionnelle. Ces partisans sont souvent capables de se mobiliser rapidement et de se fondre dans la population civile après avoir mené une attaque, ce qui rend difficile pour l'ennemi de les cibler. De plus, leur connaissance locale du terrain et de la population peut être un avantage majeur dans la lutte contre une force d'invasion.

Carl Schmitt (1888 - 1985) : la théorisation de la guerre des partisans

Schmitt conseille le gouvernement von Papen (à gauche) et Schleicher (à droite) dans la question constitutionnelle

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) était un juriste et philosophe politique allemand, largement connu pour sa contribution à la théorie politique et juridique. Cependant, il est effectivement une figure controversée en raison de son affiliation avec le parti nazi pendant les années 1930. Schmitt a adhéré au parti nazi en 1933 et a servi à plusieurs postes de haut niveau sous le régime nazi, notamment en tant que conseiller juridique au ministère des Affaires étrangères. Schmitt est notamment connu pour son travail sur le concept de "l'ennemi politique", qu'il définit comme toute entité ou groupe qui représente une menace existentielle pour un État ou une nation. Il a également développé la théorie de l'état d'exception, selon laquelle le souverain a le pouvoir de suspendre le droit en temps de crise. Malgré sa collaboration avec le régime nazi, les travaux de Schmitt ont continué à exercer une influence significative dans les études politiques et juridiques après la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Dans son essai "La théorie du partisan" (1962), Carl Schmitt étudie les changements dans la nature de la guerre au fil du temps. Il affirme que la guerre moderne est en grande partie menée par des groupes irréguliers, ou des "partisans", plutôt que par des armées régulières. Selon Schmitt, ce changement a été illustré de manière frappante lors de la guerre d'indépendance espagnole (également connue sous le nom de guerre péninsulaire) contre l'occupation française par Napoléon au début du XIXe siècle. Les Espagnols ont utilisé des tactiques de guérilla pour résister à l'invasion française, démontrant l'efficacité de ce type de combat. Il considère que la guerre de partisans n'est pas simplement une tactique de résistance militaire, mais qu'elle représente aussi une forme de combat politique. Les partisans, selon lui, sont profondément ancrés dans leur territoire et leur population locale, et sont donc capables de mener une résistance prolongée contre un envahisseur. Schmitt prédit que cette forme de guerre deviendrait la norme dans le monde moderne. Il fait valoir que la guerre de partisans met en question l'idée de la souveraineté de l'État et remodèle la nature même de la guerre.

Lhéorie du partisan de Carl Schmitt est révolutionnaire en ce sens qu'elle déplace l'attention de la guerre interétatique vers une guerre irrégulière menée par des groupes non étatiques. Ces groupes, ou partisans, sont motivés par des idéologies fortes et sont capables d'opérer de manière indépendante de l'appareil d'État. Cette transformation des acteurs du conflit a d'importantes implications pour la façon dont les guerres sont menées et, ultimement, pour la nature de l'ordre politique international. Schmitt prévoyait que le conflit moderne serait principalement marqué par des combats irréguliers menés par des groupes partisans, une prédiction qui semble avoir été validée par l'évolution des conflits au XXIe siècle, avec la montée de groupes non étatiques tels que les mouvements terroristes et les milices. Le partisan, selon Schmitt, est défini par trois caractéristiques principales : sa mobilité (il peut se déplacer rapidement et opérer en dehors des structures traditionnelles), son intensité de combat (il est motivé par une idéologie ou une cause) et sa dépendance à l'égard de la population locale (pour l'appui et l'information). Ces traits font du partisan un acteur redoutable sur le champ de bataille moderne.

Le concept des guerres révolutionnaires

Les guerres révolutionnaires, ou guerres d'insurrection, font référence à des conflits dans lesquels une population se soulève contre une puissance dominante, souvent dans le but d'obtenir l'indépendance ou le changement de régime. Ces guerres se distinguent par le fait qu'elles impliquent généralement une large participation de la population civile, et sont souvent menées par des groupes armés non conventionnels ou des partisans.

La Seconde Guerre mondiale a vu l'émergence de divers mouvements de résistance qui ont combattu l'occupation nazie dans plusieurs pays européens. Ces résistances étaient généralement constituées de civils armés qui utilisaient des tactiques de guérilla pour perturber et affaiblir l'effort de guerre allemand. Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, plusieurs mouvements de libération nationale ont adopté des tactiques similaires dans leur lutte contre le colonialisme. Par exemple, le Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) en Algérie a mené une guerre d'insurrection contre le gouvernement colonial français qui a finalement abouti à l'indépendance de l'Algérie en 1962. De même, en Égypte, les nationalistes égyptiens ont combattu pour l'indépendance contre la domination britannique. Ces guerres révolutionnaires ont mis en évidence le rôle important que peuvent jouer les partisans et les groupes non conventionnels dans la conduite de la guerre moderne, un sujet qui a été largement exploré dans la théorie du partisan de Carl Schmitt.

Les guerres de partisans, également connues sous le nom de guerres de guérilla ou de guerres asymétriques, présentent un certain nombre de caractéristiques distinctives.

Pas d'uniforme : Les partisans sont souvent des civils et n'ont pas d'uniforme officiel. Cela leur permet de se fondre dans la population civile, rendant difficile pour l'ennemi de distinguer les combattants des non-combattants.
Idéologie forte : Les partisans sont généralement motivés par une idéologie ou une cause forte, comme la libération nationale, l'opposition à l'oppression ou le renversement d'un gouvernement.
Guerre asymétrique : Contrairement aux conflits traditionnels, les partisans n'ont souvent pas accès aux mêmes ressources militaires que leurs adversaires. Ils sont généralement moins nombreux, moins bien équipés et moins bien entraînés que les forces régulières. Cependant, ils utilisent cette asymétrie à leur avantage en recourant à des tactiques non conventionnelles.
Ruse et surprise : Les partisans dépendent fortement de l'effet de surprise. Ils mènent des raids, des embuscades et des attaques de guérilla, puis se retirent rapidement avant que les forces ennemies ne puissent riposter efficacement.
Mobilité extrême : Les partisans sont souvent très mobiles, capables de se déplacer rapidement et de frapper de manière imprévisible. Cela contraste avec les forces traditionnelles qui peuvent être plus lentes à se déplacer en raison de leur taille et de leur équipement.

Ces caractéristiques rendent la guerre de partisans distincte des formes plus traditionnelles de conflit, et présentent des défis uniques pour les forces conventionnelles qui tentent de les combattre.

La notion de "guerre révolutionnaire" est en effet étroitement liée à la pensée de Mao Zedong, leader communiste chinois. Pour Mao, la révolution devait être menée par une combinaison d'action politique et militaire. Il a déclaré que "la révolution politique est l'acte principal; la révolution militaire est un acte secondaire". Cela signifie que la victoire ne peut être obtenue uniquement par des moyens militaires; un changement politique doit également se produire. Mao a également préconisé une stratégie de guérilla en tant que moyen de combattre un ennemi plus fort et mieux équipé. La guérilla, selon Mao, devait se fondre dans la population comme un "poisson dans l'eau", utilisant la population locale comme source de soutien et de recrutement. Il a prôné l'utilisation de la guérilla non seulement dans les zones rurales, mais aussi dans les zones urbaines.

Dans les années 1960 et 1970, certains groupes révolutionnaires ont tenté d'appliquer ces idées à leurs propres luttes. Cela a souvent impliqué la transition vers la guérilla urbaine, avec des combats se déroulant dans les rues des villes plutôt que dans les zones rurales. Un exemple notable de cela est la lutte menée par les Tupamaros en Uruguay. Un des exemples notoires de l'échec de la guerre de partisan a été la tentative d'Ernesto "Che" Guevara de susciter une révolution en Bolivie. Malgré son expérience de la guérilla à Cuba, Guevara a eu du mal à gagner le soutien de la population locale en Bolivie et à maintenir la cohésion de ses propres forces. Il a été capturé et exécuté par l'armée bolivienne en 1967.

Les guerres contemporaines : nouveaux enjeux et réalités

De nouvelles incidences

Les incidences actuelles des guerres modernes sur le système westphalien

la nature de la guerre a considérablement évolué depuis l'établissement du système westphalien au 17ème siècle. Ce système, nommé d'après les traités de Westphalie qui ont mis fin à la guerre de Trente Ans en Europe, était basé sur le concept de la souveraineté des États-nations et prévoyait que les conflits seraient principalement des guerres entre États. Cependant, la nature des conflits dans le monde contemporain a radicalement changé. Nous voyons de plus en plus de guerres civiles, de conflits ethniques et religieux, de terrorisme et de guerres de partisans. Ces conflits ne sont pas nécessairement limités à un seul État et peuvent impliquer une multitude d'acteurs non étatiques. De plus, avec l'augmentation de la mondialisation, ces conflits ont souvent des répercussions bien au-delà de leurs frontières géographiques immédiates.

Certains universitaires et théoriciens ont décrit cela comme un retour à un "état de nature" hobbesien, où l'ordre international est caractérisé par l'anarchie et la guerre perpétuelle. Cependant, il est important de noter que cette vision est contestée.

L'anarchie hobbesienne est un concept issu de la théorie politique de Thomas Hobbes, philosophe anglais du XVIIe siècle. Dans son ouvrage majeur, "Le Léviathan", Hobbes décrit l'état de nature comme un état de guerre de tous contre tous, où chaque individu est en constante lutte pour sa survie. Il a utilisé ce concept pour justifier le besoin d'un pouvoir central fort (le Léviathan) pour maintenir la paix et l'ordre. Dans le contexte des relations internationales, l'anarchie hobbesienne fait référence à un état de désordre mondial où chaque État agit en fonction de ses propres intérêts, sans considération pour les intérêts des autres. Il s'agit d'un monde sans institutions internationales efficaces pour réguler le comportement des États, où la guerre est un moyen courant de résolution des conflits. La montée des guerres non étatiques, du terrorisme international et de la guerre de partisans, associée à l'affaiblissement apparent de certaines institutions internationales, a conduit certains à suggérer que nous pourrions nous diriger vers une telle anarchie.

c'est une préoccupation majeure dans le contexte actuel des relations internationales. Alors que les conflits classiques interétatiques, régis par le droit de la guerre, diminuent, nous assistons à une augmentation des conflits non étatiques et asymétriques. Ces conflits impliquent souvent des acteurs non étatiques, comme des groupes terroristes ou des milices, et se déroulent souvent au sein des frontières d'un seul pays. Ces guerres ont tendance à être beaucoup plus destructrices pour les populations civiles, car elles sont souvent menées sans respect des lois et normes internationales qui sont conçues pour protéger les civils en temps de guerre. De plus, ces conflits peuvent souvent être plus difficiles à résoudre, car ils impliquent souvent des enjeux locaux complexes et sont moins susceptibles d'être influencés par la pression internationale. Ces tendances ont conduit à un renouvellement du débat sur la nécessité de réformer le système international pour mieux gérer ces types de conflits. Cela pourrait impliquer de repenser les normes et institutions existantes, de renforcer le droit international humanitaire, et de développer de nouvelles approches pour résoudre les conflits et promouvoir la paix.

L'état de guerre perpétuelle : une analyse critique

L'impact des conflits armés sur l'environnement est une préoccupation croissante. En effet, les guerres peuvent entraîner des destructions massives de l'environnement naturel, que ce soit par le biais de tactiques militaires délibérées ou simplement par les effets collatéraux des combats. Les exemples de cela incluent la déforestation, la pollution de l'eau et des sols, la destruction des habitats fauniques, et l'augmentation de l'émission de gaz à effet de serre. En outre, les conséquences environnementales des conflits peuvent également avoir des impacts sur la santé humaine, l'économie et la stabilité sociale, créant ainsi un cercle vicieux où la dégradation de l'environnement alimente d'autres conflits. Les Nations Unies et d'autres organisations internationales ont reconnu cette question comme un problème grave. Il y a un appel croissant à inclure la protection de l'environnement dans le droit international humanitaire et à tenir les parties au conflit responsables des dommages environnementaux causés pendant la guerre. Cependant, la mise en œuvre de telles mesures reste un défi majeur.

L'utilisation de l'environnement naturel comme "arme" dans les conflits est un sujet très préoccupant. L'écocide, ou la destruction délibérée de l'environnement pour des gains stratégiques ou tactiques, est une réalité dans certains conflits contemporains. Par exemple, l'incendie délibéré de puits de pétrole, la destruction de barrages pour provoquer des inondations, ou encore l'utilisation de produits chimiques toxiques peuvent avoir des conséquences désastreuses pour l'environnement. Ces actes d'écocide ne visent pas seulement à affaiblir l'ennemi en détruisant ses ressources, mais ils peuvent aussi avoir un impact à long terme sur les communautés locales en détruisant leurs moyens de subsistance et en rendant leurs habitats inhabitables.

La destruction des ressources naturelles ou économiques est une stratégie qui a été utilisée dans divers conflits à travers l'histoire. En éliminant les ressources d'un adversaire, on peut affaiblir sa capacité à se battre ou à survivre. Cela peut s'agir de détruire des infrastructures clés, comme des ponts ou des usines, de brûler des champs de culture pour priver l'ennemi de nourriture, ou d'empoisonner l'eau pour rendre une zone inhospitalière. Cependant, cette approche a des conséquences néfastes importantes. Elle peut causer de grandes souffrances à la population civile, qui est souvent la plus touchée par la destruction de ressources essentielles. De plus, elle peut causer des dommages environnementaux à long terme qui perdureront bien après la fin du conflit. C'est pourquoi le droit international humanitaire établit des règles pour protéger les ressources civiles en temps de guerre. Par exemple, la Convention de Genève interdit les attaques contre les objets indispensables à la survie de la population civile. Cela inclut la nourriture, les cultures, le bétail et l'eau potable. Les violations de ces règles peuvent être considérées comme des crimes de guerre.

La destruction de la culture de l'ennemi est également une triste réalité de certains conflits, un acte souvent connu sous le nom de "nettoyage culturel" ou de "génocide culturel". Il s'agit d'effacer l'identité culturelle de l'ennemi en ciblant des éléments tels que l'art, la littérature, les monuments, les lieux de culte, les pratiques religieuses et même les langues. En détruisant les symboles culturels et le patrimoine de l'ennemi, l'agresseur cherche non seulement à désorienter et à déshumaniser ses adversaires, mais aussi à effacer leur histoire et leur présence de la mémoire collective. Cette pratique est largement condamnée par la communauté internationale, et la destruction délibérée du patrimoine culturel est considérée comme un crime de guerre par la Cour pénale internationale. Par exemple, en 2016, la Cour pénale internationale a condamné Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi pour la destruction de monuments historiques et religieux à Tombouctou, au Mali, en 2012. Cela dit, bien que ces lois existent, leur mise en œuvre et leur application restent un défi majeur, en particulier dans les zones de conflit actif.

Les guerres sans fin : conflits prolongés et leurs conséquences

La guerre relevait d’un exceptionnel et la paix d’une normalité ce qui nous amène à nous demander si la guerre en devient pas être une normalité et la paix ne devient pas quelque chose de l’ordre de l’extraordinaire. Dans certains contextes, notamment dans des régions qui ont connu des conflits prolongés, la guerre peut sembler être la norme et la paix l'exception. Cela peut être dû à une multitude de facteurs, notamment les conflits ethniques ou religieux enracinés, la compétition pour les ressources, la corruption politique, les divisions socio-économiques et l'ingérence étrangère. De plus, dans certains cas, les structures de pouvoir existantes peuvent être renforcées par le maintien du conflit, ce qui rend d'autant plus difficile la résolution de la guerre.

Les "guerres sans fin" peuvent conduire à la création de ce qu'on appelle des "économies de guerre". Ces économies sont souvent dominées par des activités illégales ou non réglementées, y compris le trafic de drogue, le trafic d'armes, le trafic d'êtres humains et d'autres formes de criminalité organisée. Ces activités peuvent fournir des revenus à ceux qui sont impliqués dans le conflit, leur permettant de continuer à se battre malgré les coûts humains et sociaux énormes. De plus, la situation de "guerre sans fin" peut entraîner une dégradation de l'État de droit et de la gouvernance, ce qui peut à son tour faciliter la poursuite de ces activités illégales. Cela rend la résolution de ces conflits particulièrement difficile, car les acteurs impliqués peuvent avoir des intérêts financiers à maintenir le statu quo. De plus ces conflits peuvent rendre la paix presque impossible à réaliser, car il peut être difficile de trouver des interlocuteurs légitimes avec lesquels négocier une fin au conflit.

L'exemple de l'Irak est représentatif de ces "guerres sans fin". Depuis l'invasion du Koweït par l'Irak en 1990, qui a conduit à la guerre du Golfe en 1991, l'Irak a connu une série de conflits et de périodes d'instabilité. Après la guerre du Golfe, l'Irak a été soumis à des sanctions internationales sévères et a connu une instabilité interne. Puis, en 2003, une coalition dirigée par les États-Unis a envahi l'Irak, renversant le régime de Saddam Hussein. Cependant, au lieu d'apporter la stabilité, l'invasion a créé un vide de pouvoir qui a conduit à une nouvelle vague de violence et d'instabilité, notamment une insurrection violente et l'émergence de groupes extrémistes comme l'État islamique. Même après la défaite de l'État islamique, l'Irak continue de faire face à des défis majeurs, notamment l'instabilité politique, la corruption, le sous-développement économique et les tensions communautaires. Ces problèmes, à leur tour, peuvent alimenter de nouveaux conflits. Dans ce contexte, la paix peut sembler être un objectif lointain et difficile à atteindre. Cependant, il est important de noter que la paix n'est pas simplement l'absence de guerre, mais nécessite également la construction d'institutions fortes, l'établissement de la justice, la promotion du développement économique et la réconciliation entre les différentes communautés. Ce sont des tâches difficiles qui nécessitent du temps, des ressources et un engagement soutenu de toutes les parties concernées.

Vers une nouvelle théorie politique de la guerre - Michael Walzer

Michael Walzer.

Michael Walzer est un politologue et philosophe américain bien connu pour ses travaux en philosophie politique et en éthique. Dans son livre "Just and Unjust Wars" (Guerres justes et injustes), il a exploré la question éthique de quand et comment il est justifiable d'aller à la guerre, et comment une guerre devrait être menée pour être considérée comme "juste". Michael Walzer est un des principaux théoriciens du paradigme légaliste. Contrairement à Hobbes, qui considérait l'état de nature comme un état de guerre et la paix comme le résultat d'un contrat social, Walzer s'appuie sur un ensemble de normes internationales et de principes moraux pour évaluer la justesse d'une guerre. Il reprend certains des concepts de Hobbes, comme l'idée que les états ont une responsabilité de protéger leurs citoyens, mais il va plus loin en affirmant que les états ont aussi une obligation de respecter les droits des citoyens des autres états, même en temps de guerre. Walzer insiste sur l'importance de principes tels que la distinction entre combattants et non-combattants, la proportionnalité de l'usage de la force, et la nécessité militaire. Selon lui, ces principes doivent être respectés pour qu'une guerre soit considérée comme juste, quels que soient les motifs pour lesquels elle a été déclenchée. Il s'agit là d'un cadre légaliste, car il repose sur un ensemble de règles et de normes qui doivent être respectées.

Walzer a adopté ce qu'il a appelé une approche "légaliste" ou "jus in bello" (droit en guerre), en s'appuyant sur des principes tels que le respect des droits des non-combattants, la proportionnalité de la force utilisée, la nécessité militaire et le fait que les forces armées doivent distinguer entre les combattants et les civils. Selon Walzer, une guerre n'est justifiée que si elle est menée en conformité avec ces principes. Il défend également le concept de "jus ad bellum" (droit à la guerre), qui examine la justesse de l'entrée en guerre. Selon ce concept, une guerre n'est justifiée que si elle est menée pour résister à l'agression, protéger les innocents, défendre les droits humains, etc. En outre, Walzer a également discuté de la notion de "guerre juste", une idée qui remonte à Saint Augustin et Thomas d'Aquin. Selon cette notion, une guerre est juste si elle est menée pour des raisons justes et de manière juste.

Michael Walzer, dans son ouvrage "Just and Unjust Wars", argue que même dans l'extrême situation de la guerre, des règles morales et éthiques s'appliquent. La guerre, pour lui, n'est pas un état d'anarchie morale. Au contraire, il soutient que le comportement en temps de guerre peut et doit être jugé à partir de standards moraux. En effet, il avance que même si la guerre est une situation d'exception, cela ne signifie pas qu'elle soit dépourvue de toute norme morale ou éthique. Une guerre juste est une guerre maitrisée, c’est une guerre de combattants légaux. Ainsi, il distingue entre une guerre juste, qui respecte certaines règles, et une guerre injuste, qui ne respecte pas ces règles. Pour lui, une guerre juste est une guerre où la cause est juste (par exemple, la défense contre une agression), où les combattants sont des acteurs légitimes (des soldats d'un État), où la force utilisée est proportionnelle et nécessaire, et où une distinction est faite entre les combattants et les non-combattants, ces derniers étant protégés des attaques. Il souligne que même si la guerre est une réalité violente et destructrice, il y a des limites à ce qui est permis en temps de guerre. Cela ne signifie pas qu'il y a quelque chose de fondamentalement moral dans le concept de guerre, mais plutôt que même en guerre, certaines actions peuvent être jugées immorales.

Michael Walzer s'efforce en effet de comprendre comment les normes morales peuvent s'appliquer dans des situations de guerre, qui sont par nature violentes et destructrices. Sa préoccupation centrale est de déterminer si et comment certaines actions peuvent être jugées morales ou immorales en temps de guerre. Selon lui, même dans le contexte de la guerre, il existe des limites morales à ce qui est permis. Par exemple, il est généralement considéré comme immoral de cibler intentionnellement des non-combattants. De même, l'usage disproportionné de la force est également considéré comme immoral. Pour Walzer, la morale de la guerre ne réside pas dans le fait de faire la guerre en soi, mais plutôt dans la manière dont la guerre est menée. Autrement dit, ce ne sont pas les guerres elles-mêmes qui peuvent être morales ou immorales, mais les actions spécifiques prises au cours de ces guerres.

Michael Walzer soutient qu'il peut y avoir une moralité dans la guerre si celle-ci est menée de manière défensive contre une agression, respecte les principes de discrimination (c'est-à-dire ne cible pas délibérément les non-combattants) et de proportionnalité (c'est-à-dire utilise un niveau de force proportionné à la menace), et si elle est menée par des combattants qui respectent les lois de la guerre. Il affirme que même si la guerre est intrinsèquement destructrice et violente, elle peut être conduite d'une manière qui respecte certains principes moraux. Par exemple, le fait de ne pas utiliser d'armes de destruction massive, de ne pas cibler délibérément des civils et de ne pas recourir à la torture sont des comportements que Walzer considère comme moralement justifiés, même en temps de guerre. Cependant, Walzer ne considère pas ces comportements comme transformant la guerre en une entreprise morale en soi. Au contraire, il s'agit plutôt de limiter le mal que la guerre peut causer.

Le terrorisme représente un défi majeur à l'idée de la guerre juste et aux principes de moralité en temps de guerre. Par sa nature même, le terrorisme implique généralement des attaques non discriminatoires contre des civils innocents, dans le but d'engendrer la peur et de perturber la société. Ces tactiques contreviennent directement aux principes de discrimination et de proportionnalité qui sous-tendent la théorie de la guerre juste. L'utilisation délibérée de la violence contre des civils à des fins politiques est largement considérée comme immorale et inacceptable selon les normes internationales. En outre, le terrorisme est souvent perpétré par des acteurs non étatiques qui ne sont pas clairement identifiables comme des combattants, ce qui brouille les distinctions traditionnelles entre combattants et non-combattants et rend difficile l'application des lois de la guerre. La réponse au terrorisme pose également des défis éthiques et moraux. Par exemple, comment les gouvernements peuvent-ils protéger efficacement leurs citoyens contre le terrorisme tout en respectant les droits de l'homme et les principes de l'État de droit ? À quel point est-il acceptable de restreindre les libertés civiles dans le but de prévenir le terrorisme ? Ces questions n'ont pas de réponses faciles et représentent une zone de débat et de discorde continue dans les relations internationales et la théorie politique.

La théorie de Michael Walzer tente de répondre à la question de savoir quand il est moralement acceptable de faire la guerre et comment elle devrait être conduite d'une manière moralement acceptable. Il soutient que même dans un contexte aussi violent et complexe que la guerre, des règles morales et éthiques doivent être appliquées. Selon Walzer, il existe des cas où une guerre peut être justifiée, généralement en réponse à une agression non provoquée. De plus, il soutient que les combattants doivent se conformer à certaines règles de conduite en temps de guerre. Par exemple, il soutient que les attaques doivent être dirigées uniquement contre des cibles militaires légitimes, et non contre des civils. Dans ce contexte, le "paradigme légaliste" de Walzer est un appel à un retour de la politique dans la conduite de la guerre. Il argumente que les décisions sur la guerre et la paix doivent être prises sur la base de principes politiques et moraux, et non simplement en réponse à des impératifs stratégiques ou de sécurité. Ainsi, bien que la guerre puisse être amorale par nature, Walzer insiste sur le fait que nous pouvons et devons nous efforcer d'y imposer une certaine moralité. Selon Walzer, même si la guerre est une réalité terrifiante et dévastatrice, il est nécessaire d'appliquer des normes éthiques et politiques pour guider sa conduite. C'est ce qu'il entend par le "retour du politique" - un appel à prendre en compte des considérations morales et éthiques dans les décisions de guerre.

Philippe Delmas est un stratège et auteur français qui a écrit sur divers aspects de la guerre et de la politique internationale. Dans son livre "Le Bel Avenir de la Guerre", il suggère que la guerre est un aspect inévitable et même nécessaire de l'ordre mondial, et que l'idée d'un monde sans guerre est non seulement irréaliste, mais peut même être préjudiciable. Delmas conteste certaines des présomptions de base qui sous-tendent la théorie de la guerre juste et le paradigme légaliste en général. Il suggère que l'effort pour encadrer la guerre avec des règles et des réglementations strictes est une tentative futile et potentiellement contre-productive pour domestiquer une réalité brutale et chaotique. Selon Delmas, la guerre a une valeur politique intrinsèque et peut servir de catalyseur à des changements politiques, sociaux et économiques significatifs. En ce sens, il propose une vision beaucoup plus cynique et plus réaliste de la guerre que celle souvent associée à des penseurs comme Michael Walzer.

Annexes

Faris, E. (1930). The Evolution of War: A Study of Its Role in Early Societies.Maurice R. Davie. In American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 35, Issue 6, pp. 1114–1116). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/215270
Davie, M.R. (2003) The evolution of war: A study of its role in early societies. New York: Dover Publications.
"Clausewitz and the Blue Flower of Romanticism: Understanding."International Relations And Security Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. <http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=183843>.
"(Audio) Conférence #2 - Pierre Hassner, "Guerre Et Paix Au XXIe Siécle" - 27 Janvier 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJJ3ptIm5Pg&list=PLai4NNFe3eJMYFKhqqNLe0VqrB5av3ljQ>.
NATO StratCom COE; Mark Laity. (2018, August 10). What is War?. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj-wsdGL4-M
ouvrages
- Un souvenir de Solferino, Henry Dunant : ouvrage complet à télécharger
- Léviathan : Traité de la matière, de la forme et du pouvoir ecclésiastique et civil, Thomas Hobbes : ouvrage complet à télécharger
- Le Prince, Miachavel : ouvrage complet

References