Animals and the ethics of war: a call for an inclusive just-war theory
| Published date | 01 September 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191297 |
| Author | Josh Milburn,Sara Van Goozen |
| Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231191297
International Relations
2023, Vol. 37(3) 423 –448
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178231191297
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Animals and the ethics of
war: a call for an inclusive
just-war theory
Josh Milburn
Loughborough University
Sara Van Goozen
University of York
Abstract
Animals have been almost entirely absent from scholarly appraisals of the ethics of war. Just-war
theory concerns when communities may permissibly resort to war; who may wage war; who
they may harm in war; and what kinds of harm they may cause. Each question can be complicated
by animals’ inclusion. After introducing just-war theory and the argument for an animal-inclusive
just-war theory, this paper reviews ethical appraisals of war on animals’ behalf and wars against
animals. It then turns to consider harm to and use of animals in war. It concludes by considering
questions in the ethics of war beyond just-war theory as traditionally construed.
Keywords
animal ethics, animal rights, animals, ethics of war, just war theory, war
Introduction
In August 2021, as Western forces scrambled to leave Afghanistan before the Taliban
claimed Kabul, around 150 dogs and cats preoccupied the British public. The animals
lived in Paul ‘Pen’ Farthing’s Nowzad animal shelter, in Kabul. Farthing eventually man-
aged to bring his animals to the UK – though the evacuation left behind Farthing’s staff
Corresponding author:
Josh Milburn, International Relations, Politics and History, Loughborough University, Loughborough
LE11 3TU, UK.
Email: jmilburn02@qub.ac.uk
1191297IRE0010.1177/00471178231191297International RelationsMilburn and Van Goozen
research-article2023
Article
424 International Relations 37(3)
and their families. The story divided the nation. On the one hand, the animals were inno-
cent. On the other, there was outrage that government officials appeared to be prioritising
‘pets’ over people.1
Six months later, companion animals were in the news again. Heartrending images of
Ukrainian refugees and their companions fleeing Russian forces circulated, and the
Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs even used such images to garner support.2 Further,
many organisations raised funds or sent volunteers into Ukraine to feed, or rescue,
animals left behind.3
Companion animals are but some of the animals impacted by war. At time of writing,
disturbing stories about harm to Ukraine’s farmed animals circulate on social media,4
while Ukraine’s zookeepers face difficult choices about whether to evacuate animals.5
The war’s impact on wild animals is, currently, unknown. Elsewhere, war has had
significant negative impacts on wild animals. For example, the elephants of Angola and
Mozambique were widely hunted and killed during civil wars in those countries – the
elephant population in Mozambique’s Gorongosa National Park declined by 90% during
the country’s civil war.6 In Afghanistan, US military ‘burn pits’ created toxic smoke con-
taining lead, mercury and other contaminants, and left behind toxic waste that seeped
into the soil, negatively impacting humans, animals, and the environment alike.7
These ‘incidental’ victims of war are not the only headline-grabbing animals8 caught
up in military activities. Consider the ‘truly remarkable incident’ in 2014 of the Taliban
capture of a highly trained British military dog.9 At the time, there was speculation
in the British press about a possible rescue mission, the award of the Dickin Medal
(‘the animals’ Victoria Cross’) or a prisoner exchange – all ethically fraught possibilities.
The dog’s fate is unclear. Similarly, Ukrainian soldiers reportedly took in a Russian
military dog in 2022, subsequently retraining Max (as he became named) with Ukrainian
commands. Max, according to one guardsman, was to ‘defend Ukraine, and learn to bite
off some Russian asses’.10
In an important sense, we lack the tools needed to meaningfully discuss animals in
war. For example, the status of animals in international humanitarian law (IHL) is
ambiguous and inconsistent.11 Consequently, it’s difficult to determine, from a legal
perspective, how militaries may treat animals, or what protections the international
community owes them once fighting starts. Take the just-discussed British dog. Though
one commentator wryly observed that the Taliban were willing to comply with their
obligations under the Geneva Convention when it came to canine, but not human, pris-
oners of war,12 whether anyone did owe the dog anything under IHL is not immediately
clear (see §4.2). It might ultimately depend on to whom the dog belonged, and to what
military purpose they put the dog – a frustrating conclusion for those who believe we
owe dogs respect in virtue of their being thinking, feeling beings.
From an ethical perspective, meanwhile, the dominant Western approach to the
morality of war – the just-war tradition – remains resolutely anthropocentric.13 It is, we
contend, time for this to change. Scholars in (critical) animal studies have explored the
use of animals in war for at least a decade,14 and, recently, normative scholars in law,
ethics, and politics have addressed the topic, too. This includes early efforts to integrate
animal ethics and just-war theory (JWT).
To continue reading
Request your trial