Jus in Militaribus and Moral Injury

Abstract

This study analyses the following problem: due to limitations in familiar (classic and modern) formulations of the just war tradition- (JWT) based moral-ethical decision-making guidance in US military doctrine, current military moral injury management capabilities are not entirely fit for purpose. Military doctrinal discussion of the JWT generally focuses on the legal, compliance-centered considerations of jus ad bellum and jus in bello principles. This focus results in two important limitations from the moral injury management perspective. Firstly, the resulting guidance does not cover the full range of military tasks and responsibilities. Military tasks and responsibilities exceed the limits of jus ad bellum- and jus in bello-based guidance and yet can still generate betrayals resulting in moral injury. Secondly, this guidance does not provide a model of military institutional trust. This entails that the US military doctrinal moral-ethical decision-making guidance typically fails to adequately address the trust violation related sources of moral injury. The addition of what Jonathan Shay referred to as jus in militaribus, that is, attention to the justness and unjustness of the policies and practices of the military institution itself, to the military doctrinal articulation of the JWT is necessary to enable the development of a more effective military moral injury management capability. Using jus in militaribus as a framework for JWT-based moral-ethical guidance formulation, including a model of military institutional trust, within official military doctrine will enable more effective moral injury management capability development. This jus in militaribus framework-based moral injury management capability will better prevent moral injury occurrences, ameliorate the effects of moral injury, and enable recovery from moral injury across the full range of military activities than the current approaches.