Right of Conquest versus Just War Doctrine

Right of Conquest versus Just War Doctrine

"Might Makes Right" is a subset of "Right of Conquest". Might makes right is such a hackneyed overused and trite expression, so as almost to be a cliché, as are those who seek to invoke it.

"The crime is the punishment" results for those who wish to adhere to the "Right of Conquest" as the justification for wars of aggression.

The Just War Doctrine specifically excludes wars for personal enrichment and acquisition, and related motives.

Right of Conquest is the supposed right of a conqueror to the ownership of territories taken via force of arms.

The Right of Conquest is associated with the traditional principle that sovereign states may resort to war at their discretion and that territorial and other gains achieved by military victory will be recognized as legally valid.

The logic being is that the denial of the right of conquest is meaningless unless one is able and willing to use military force to deny it. Supposedly the right of conquest meant that any lawfully entitled governance of the conqueror would more likely to secure peace and stability for the people, legitimizes the conqueror.

I am not interested in debating that logic, or give examples of being able to conquer a given territory but not being able to defend it or govern it.

When one opts out of the Just War Doctrine and adopts the Right of Conquest, you foreswear the protections of the Just War Doctrine.

When you adhere to the Just War Doctrine, then wars of choice and aggression are war crimes and are treated accordingly. If you claim that you do not adhere to the Just War Doctrine and that instead you claim the Right of Conquest, then you are subject to the Right of Conquest and not protected by the Just War Doctrine.

The closest parallel I could come up with is excommunication of a monarch by the papacy. Rulers in Europe rule by a claim of divine right and war between them could only be conducted under certain rules and for certain cause and claim. If excommunicated, any other monarch or anyone at all could attack and obtain the territory for their own without regard to said rules, cause or legitimate colour of claim.

Without abandoning the Just War Doctrine, if a polity claims the Right of Conquest, then they are not protected by the mores of the Just War Doctrine, and anyone may attack them without just cause or claim.

The punishment for the policy of Right of Conquest is to be subject to the Right of Conquest.

The rules and norms, which we refer to as The Forms, are what protects us. As has been repeated many times, The Forms do not protect those who do not obey The Forms.

Thus, wars of aggression and conquest, outside of the 'Just War Doctrine' are war crimes and are treated as such, or one declares "Right of Conquest" and are thus not protected by the Just War Doctrine. You cannot both adopt the "Right of Conquest" and then claim the civil protections of the "Just War Doctrine", one must choose and accept the natural consequence of said choice.

Perhaps the faint glimmer of natural consequence might cross their minds of those who dream of "Right of Conquest".

His Grace, Margrave Princely Count Sardar Kumar Sri Rai Sahib Khanzadeh, Imperial Observer to the Mu Draconis System and throughout the Schedar Marche of the the Duchy of Achernar In the Geminga/Solomani Sphere of influence, located in Orion’s Arm (OA) Sector 2814 of the Concordat Dynasty of the Trantorian Galactic Imperium.