19
Of course, a second question arises: does the US have some responsibility as the
lone superpower to protect life and the international order outside its borders? It is
beyond the boundaries of this paper to discuss this at length, but the answer is yes on at
least two levels. First, in order to protect its citizens and its way of life in the long run, at
times the US will have to act against threats such as rogue states and international
terrorist organizations, even if the threats only indirectly affect the US but directly
challenge the security of our allies and partners.
Second, the contemporary international order with all its flaws, based largely on
Pax Americana, is a time of unprecedented interaction, freedom, and security. Few
countries around the globe need fear conquest by the global hegemon making this is a
truly unique historical moment. The current peace is far better than the “stability” of the
Cold War or eras that preceded it. This peace is worth preserving.
11
In evaluating how to meet such responsibility the US and the West should be
pragmatic: “Do we utilize organizations such as the UN or not? How do we prioritize our
involvement in a world of limited resources?” In the end, a political ethic of
responsibility requires resistance and containment of threats to human life and security.
Jus in bello
Jus in bello has traditionally been about methods. A reconceived jus in bello
takes into account, both morally and practically, how the use of force can be used to
11
This point echoes Jean Bethke Elshtain’s Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a
Violent World ( New York: Basic Books, 2003). President Bush’s much-maligned National Security
Strategy similarly calls for preserving, defending, and extending “the peace”
(www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html). Moreover, it seems that only the United States seems to have the will
Convention