Essay On Just War Theory

Just war can be traced back to the pagan teachings, which was later refined by Christian leaders to justify their followers into going to war (Cahill, 2005). St. Augustine was identified as the first to offer his view on war and justice, viewing war as a necessary evil if peace and justice were to come and labeling it as something practical when conflict arises. Later on, St. Thomas Aquinas revised Augustine’s version and added three more conditions: the war had to be waged by the proper authority, the cause had to be just, and the intentions had to be right. All of these additions and refinements lead to the same just war theory that we are familiar with today (Baer, 2006).

Lastly, the notion to hurt one’s enemy peoples to force their government into a complete surrender and to minimize the general loss of one’s own troops is immoral. Naturally, the typical ethical standards of war would not justify any use of dehumanization in order for a nation to supersede the other. The Japanese became dehumanized in the minds of American combatants and civilians. The process enabled greater cultural and physical differences between white Americans and Japanese than between the former and their European foes. In Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977), he defines “ the use of force by one nation against another is always wrong unless the latter has already forfeited its basic rights.” Walzer is clearly stating that wars; especially nuclear wars are unjust if they strip away basic civilian rights. In other words, they are ponds in a game of political and nuclear warfare.

When is it justifiable to engage in war? This question has plagued humanity for centuries and continues to do so. The theory of just war addresses three important questions when considering and dealing with war. These components are when is it justifiable to go to war, the right ways to conduct proceedings during war, and the justification of terminating war. The first part of the theory, originally written in Latin as jus ad bellum, is an important idea within Pope Urban II’s, “Speech at Clermont.” In the 11th century Pope Urban II gave this speech as a call for crusade with the hope of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim control. They eventually succeeded in this mission and took the city of Jerusalem. The “Speech at Clermont,” is now an important source for understanding the justifications of going to war within the medieval just war theory. Throughout the speech Pope Urban II justified the crusade by claiming it was the responsibility of the Christian people to regain the Holy Land, to protect their fellow Christians in the East, and their duty to stop the “disgraceful” and “demon worshipping” Muslim people.

One important theory within International Relations shows a moral aspect on how to conduct war. This theory is called Just War Theory. Just War Theory is a doctrine of military ethics from a philosophical and Catholic viewpoint. This theory consists of two parts: Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and Jus in bello (right conduct within war).

The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the

War, a state of armed conflict between different nations and states. Both nations Texas and Mexico were disputed on their countries borders. Many Americans felt like they wanted to go to war with Mexico and used any reason no matter how big or small to do it. America tried to meet with Mexican representatives to settle the borders, but neither side did much talking. The United States was not just in going to war with Mexico due to them picking on the smaller country (Mexico), Mexico was just defending the borders Mexico thought they had, and Polk sent troops near the border of Mexico and was unclear on his intentions.

Much like the rest of the world, wars in the United States began before it was even considered a country. The revolutionary war was a brave and noble war fought by America’s earliest ancestors in the 1770s in the hopes of creating a better country for their prosperity. However, because it was not declared by an esteemed government, some would argue that it was not actually considered “just”. With the American Civil War, there were so many factors involved that the argument could be made both ways (2). Today, it has been decreed that the Civil War was fought entirely as an opposition to slavery in the South; however, at the time of the war, many more questions could be made as to the official reason. Because those battles were fought so long ago, theorists may only use the little information left behind to determine the justification of warfare.

The just war theory has a long history. Parts of the Bible hint at ethical behavior in war and concepts of just cause, announcing the justice of war by divine intervention.

Throughout this course we have gone over numerous different topics and issues that all relate to the Bible. The topics range from Genesis and the different accounts of creation to who founded the African Methodist Episcopal Church. A topic that seems very intriguing is Augustine and Tertullian’s theories on war and violence. This paper will discuss the two main theories on violence in the Christian tradition. Throughout history, Christians have had different perspectives on violence. Some of the accounts are on the pacifist side, while others are on the side that violence is necessary in some instances. The two leading authors on violence are Tertullian and Augustine. Tertullian seems to base his facts more on the Bible, specifically Matthew’s teachings. These teachings based his thinking as to why a person should not commit violence under any circumstances. Augustine bases his teachings off of Saint Thomas Aquinas as well as accounts in the bible. These things helped him create what is known as the “Just War Theory”. In the end, one can see how Augustine’s “Just War Theory” is a much more viable option grounded in a Christian tradition which allows for one to practice their faith, but not be pushed around by those looking to forcefully push one away from God.

1) Walzer makes the claim that the evolution of Just War Theory in the United States came about as anti-war leftists sought a common moral stance against the Vietnam War. Walzer states that the left viewed the Vietnam War as a war of aggression, the last of an imperialist adventure. After the end of the war, Just War Theory became an academic subject. The theory was subject to debate and discussion in mainstream colleges as well as military academies. These students would become leaders in both politics and in the military.

Just War Theory Many people believe that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the Second World War to an end. However, whether these bombings were truly necessary and whether they led to the Japanese surrender have yet to be objectively determined. In times of war, countries reference just war theory, which outlines how to carry out ethical warfare. When examining the aforementioned bombings, it becomes apparent that they violated the concepts of just war as they killed so many citizens and that they were unnecessary despite how the war’s conclusion followed the occurrences.

According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be

Just-War Theory Since the dawn of Christianity, thoughts of war, and the Christian conscience has been at odds. This was a major issue in the early Church and continues to cause dissension in the Church today. The Just-War theory, originated by St. Augustine, has developed throughout the ages in order to justify Christian war in the defense of peace and charity. The foundation of Just-War Theory lies in a two rode path, which allows an evil attendant to occur as it is separated from the good, which is intended. In the same way the Just War Theory justifies the murder of the enemy in order to bring peace to the situation and to resist the evil of the enemy.

Clausewitz defines war as an “act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” The nature of war is enduring yet the character of war changes over time. Current US strategic guidance is advancing the point of view that since the character of war has changed to focus on irregular wars then the US military should prepare for a future of irregular wars. This shift in focus forgets that the nature of war is enduring and in order to be successful, we must prepare for all types of conflict. This paper will define the types of conflict and the likelihood of each followed by a discussion of US strategic guidance and ending with an analysis of the training resources and force structure requirements needed to achieve success for all types of

Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum are the three stages of Just War Theory. Jus ad Bellum pertains to the ethics of starting a just war, with the principles being having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. Jus in Bello covers the conduct of individuals at war, with discrimination and proportionality being the guidelines. Meaning, only use force against legitimate targets in war, and only use an amount of force that is morally appropriate. Jus Post Bellum discusses how justice should be served following the cessation of a war, with discrimination being a big