Just War Theory and Non-State Actors: Ethical Dilemmas in Countering Al-Shabaab and Maritime Piracy in Kenya

The chapter challenges JWT’s state-centric framework in asymmetrical conflicts by analyzing non-state threats using the concepts of jus ad bellum (justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war), which is also referred to as the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). JWT’s reliance upon state sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction is affected by Al-Shabaab, which is motivated by religious ideology, and maritime piracy, which is attributed to systemic marginalization and the disintegration of governance. When coupled with the right to war and just war-making, it forms the aspects international humanitarian law. The degree to which Kenya’s maritime interdictions and cross-border military interventions adhere to JWT principles is assessed. The results show that JWT’s shortcomings in dealing with non-state actors whose tactics defy conventional warfare paradigms are exposed. Although Kenya’s responses fit with jus ad bellum approaches, they overlook the structural drivers of conflict. Drawing on critical security studies (CSS), Al-Shabaab capitalizes on local grievances, while piracy flourishes in maritime spaces that have been formed by economic disparities. This highlights shortcomings in JWT’s universalist assertions and encourages the synthesis of jus in bello safeguards and CSS’s transformative justice strategies. Kenya confirms the insufficiency of mainstream JWT to meet the challenge of hybrid threats that involve coordinated actions which use both military and non-military means to undermine a state and the need for ethical frameworks that move beyond state-centered conventions, and that policymakers are required to juggle short-term security needs with the addressing of underlying drivers such as poverty and state collapse.