Just War Theory Analysis

Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

The Just War Theory is a set of criteria that are used to judge whether a war is morally justifiable. It was St Augustine in the third century that formulated the Just War theory, and was formalised 10 centuries later by Thomas Aquinas. There are seven criteria by which a war can be judged to be just. Among the rules are Just Cause – there must be a very good reason for going to war, such as protecting your country from invasion. There should be a formal declaration of war by the legal government. It has to be the last resort and all other alternatives must be exhausted. There must be a reasonable chance of success and great care must be

Proportionality within Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello coincides with the views of the realists of stability within a nation-state. Realists understand the effects of war on civilians. Contrary to Distinction and Military Necessity, Realists recognize that within war there are many casualties and sometimes they are of civilians and those not involved in the war. With terrorist groups of today, a thoughtful realist would say that torture of those captured is sometimes pertinent to safeguard the state. This combats the view of Fair Treatment of Prisoners of War. When the safety of a country is at risk, a realist would agree that it becomes a vital interest. This vital interest could lead to nuclear or biological warfare depending on the severity of the vital interest. Within the No Mean malum in se category, it overtly condemns this. But a thoughtful realist would agree that these steps might be necessary in some situations. A thoughtful realist would agree with one part of the category, which states that mass rape is completely immoral.

There are many questions surrounding the topic of war. Should we fight? How do we win? Why are we fighting? The most debatable question of all is if the war is considered just.

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

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

According to the Just War theory, just war is separated into two domains. First is the motivation behind entering war, and second is the means used during warfare (Hu, 2). The first judgment signifies justice of war, or jus ad bellum that evaluates the terms of a just versus unjust war. The second signifies justice in war, or jus in bello, which essentially measures whether or not the ends justify the means. The relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello are independent of each other, meaning that even if the war passes the judgment of one area, it does not imply justification for the other

Wars are fought for many reasons and I back then it use to be that to territories went to war to gain land for their country and that was the usually justification. People also go to war because they believe in different things and they see each other as “less than human” so they be. The reading stated the war is a last resort option for most. Some important principles of a just war are the non-violent options must be considered first. Also war cannot be declared unless it is by someone with authority such as the President. Another thing mentioned in the reading is that a just war can only be fought if it is for the right reasons. A just war should only occur if there is a chance of success because a lot of lives, money, and resources can be wasted if the war is not won. Although war itself is not peaceful the whole point of a just war is to re-established peace. Also violence in war must be equivalent or near equivalent to the injury suffered, for example a country cannot just use a weapon of mass destruction to win a war. Civilians should never be involved in the conflict of war and soldiers should avoid killing them.

The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists

The assumption that there are a morally significant achievements that can be made in war seems paramount to just war theory. Taking a life without certainty of of the necessity of doing so undermines the value of that life. Because international relations provides such an ambiguous and subjective subject matter to apply just killing theory to, pacifism seems to be the approach most likely to encourage peace.

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

Islam has developed its Just war theory from its early development in the time of prophet Mohammad himself, Islam began the process of political rule, exercise of power and even the exertion of political will and exercise of force and the formation of a highly effective governance and expansion. Islam the concepts of war, battle, and conduct of war, among other things are not some accretion that has to be theologically justified after well over 300 years of life of the faith, but rather they are central to the formation of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and ethics because they happen during the life of the prophet and during the process of revelations (Amjad &Charles,240). Early sources of Muhammad and caliphates in political and social contexts become weakness in today’s context that they