On a daily basis, many people die due to water scarcity around the world. Poor people are suffering of water shortage, while the rich consume enormous amounts. In most cases, insecurity, instability, and conflict in many countries are brought about by water scarcity. Technological advancement is changing the mode in which most countries fight and solve their differences (Goswami 65). Shared resources such as water bodies are facing several challenges as most countries interests differ. Disagreement in management of riparian resources remains the great challenge. According to the UN Charter, no sovereignty should get involved in infiltration or violence with another state but in cases of self -defense, the act of aggression by a state to another state is justified (Goswami 78). Therefore, the aim of this paper is to identify whether resorting to attack a neighboring state that attempts to prevent a river diversion by building a dam conforms to the just law theory. Further, the essay will give a response to Hawk’s argument on pacifist’s attitude.
Apparently, water is life for every person. Based on the case study, the idea of diverting the river by building a dam on it is a threat to the people of the other state’s right to life. Therefore, the action of going to war would thus conform to the just war theory. The issue of water is a very critical challenge to most countries in the globe, and hence the country under threat of starvation and death due to lack of water is justified to go on a war in protection of its rights (Goswami 68). In this case, the war is as a result of self-defense from an aggressive regime. Since the river diversion will adversely interfere with human life, the state whose people are likely to get severely affected has to find means of addressing the issue. The action of self-defense is likely to have a wide support internationally since the war is driven by humanitarian purposes as opposed to self-interest. According to the just war theory, in a situation where a state’s activity severely or negatively impacts on the other state and there is failure to resolve their differences, the negatively affected state is justified to attack the opponent if the act is for the interest of its people, but not own its own interest (Goswami 74).
While just war theory asserts that under certain circumstances war can be morally justified, pacifism argues that war under no circumstance can be morally justified (Hawk 738). In this case, Hawk points out that no matter the condition or the situation leading to the disagreement, resorting to war can never be morally justified since it leads to distraction of property, loss of life, and depression of peace among others (Hawk 740). Ideally, the argument of pacifism as it is applied in describing a range of factors and past movements is generally characterized with rejection of violence or non-violence acts. In response to the hawk’s argument on pacifist attitude, it is actually the best resort to conflict solution. Furthermore, conflict or war will always lead to severe distraction before it is solved; this will only worsen the situation between the conflicting parties before peace is restored (Hawk 742). Humanity should be a key factor to any country’s interest. Therefore, protection of the people from threats like war should be taken into consideration.
Works Cited
Goswami, Namrata. "Just war theory and humanitarian intervention: a comparative study of
East Pakistan and Kosovo." Detroit: Gale, Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.
Hawk, William J. "Pacifism: Reclaiming the moral presumption." Ethics in practice (2009): 735-745.
