Competent Authority and Right Intention in Crimea

In this blog post, I will analyze the next two criteria for the Just War theory in terms of Vladimir Putin's actions in Crimea- Competent Authority and Right Intention. The idea of competent authority refers to who has the right to declare and wage a war. The criterion for this is that "a just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinction of justice. Dictatorships or deceptive military actions are typically considered as violations of this criterion. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice." Right intention, however, refers to the idea that force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose- correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

In terms of competent authority, I believe that Putin certainly counts as a political authority who presides over a political system with a distinction of justice. While the Russian Federation may have differing ideas from ours about what constitutes justice and right, it goes without saying that they do indeed have a legitimate court and law system. 

For right intention, however, there is a different interpretation. While Putin and his followers may have truly believed that their cause to regain Russian territories and "protect ethnic Russians" in these places, at the most basic level this annexation was brought on by a desire for material gain and economic purposes. The desire for a warm-water port (a great advantage in trade and economics) was a large factor in sending troops into the Ukraine. Since material gain and economic maintenance are used here as reasoning for the invasion, Putin's actions do not constitute right intention. 

Warm-Water Port Krym in Crimea