War And Exercise Sound Judgment

Another principle of just war is reasonable chance of success, these principle advices nations not to resort to war when they see the results will be futile. For example if a small nation is attacked by a greater nation, it should not opt to go to war since it has no chance of success. Such a nation needs to do nothing and hope to make use of diplomatic resolution in the future.

Protestors would stand outside of the White House and chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” in reference to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s ever-seeming inability to tackle what was beginning to seem like a crisis. By the summer of 1967, fewer than 50 percent of polled citizens (US) said they supported the president’s conduct of the war. This negative view continued until the conflicts end, and those that partook in the fighting were shunned by the society they ultimately fought to protect. Saint Thomas Aquinas (b. 1225 AD) established a series of principals titled ‘the Theory of Aggression’ in his book ‘Summa Theologicae’ that can be placed adjacent to every conflict within Western history, serving to imbue the covenant of warfare in its entirety.

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.

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

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

than Russia so that there is not an unnecessary onslaught. The fourth subcategory for declaring a just war is to have a right intention. An example of going to war over a right intention would be to correct a suffered wrong, an example of this would be an event happening like Pearl Harbor. A right intention cannot be used for purely a material gain. The next criteria for declaring a just war is to use proportionality. Proportionality is using a similar sized force or attack strategy as your opponent. An example of this would be if the United States and Mexico decided to go to war against each other and there has just been small arms fire at the border. As long as one force is not going “overkill” or dropping nukes on a country that does not

Also the appropriate authority must be the persons who have declared war and ensured that this call was done on the basis of last resort, after trying to attempt all other methods which could assist in resolving the conflict. The second principle which is of the just war theory is Jus in Bello. (Anon,[n.d]b), These are rules and guidelines which explain some steps that the state must adhere to whilst in the conflict. In order to follow this principle, the states must follow proportionality and discrimination during the conflict. Those who are in fighting in the conflict must not use excessive force, only the force which is needed to achieve the necessary outcome. It is also important for them to be careful and precise when identifying any enemy combatants, and always ensuring they avoid civilians at all costs including illegitimate targets which could potentially cause destruction and violation on their individual rights. (Anon,[n.d]b),

The ostensible contradiction between war and morality has resulted in serious moral questions that many ethicists have tried to answer. Is war ever just? Is war just an irremovable part of human nature? Is some war just? The world constantly finds itself in a state of some form of war, and as such it seems that assessing the morality of war is essential.

Regan explains that just war theorists have developed two major ideologies to understand the just war conduct. First, the principle of discrimination that just warriors may directly target people participating in the enemy nations wrongdoing but should not target other enemy nationals. "The enemy nation's wrongdoing justifies the victim nation's use of military force will necessarily involve targeting enemy personal engaged in the wrongdoing (Regan, pp 88)." The principle of discrimination requires military combatants to wage carefully the effects of their actions in general people. It is very important notion that Regan explained about ordinary civilians because many conflict, civilians become a victim from both side. The principle of discrimination

'In war some sorts of restraint, both on what we can legitimately fight for (jus ad bellum) and on how we may legitimately fight (jus in bello), are morally required'.1 However, recent theorists also add the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus post bellum) to the main two categories of just war theory. From Christian perspective the function of the JWT was simply an excuse of making war morally and religiously possible writes Michael Walzer. He also agrees with its defendants, that it made war possible in a world where war was, sometimes, necessary. JWT is therefore to be used as a sort of moral rule-book from which legitimate

D.... In the first place, one must keep in mind a principle which is the basis of this and

“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.

In the time period of last ten years, many changes have been observed in the nature of Warfare from being aggressive towards more argumentative. There are various views and debates among the nature and character of the wars and the debate continues to grow with time. The several reasons of changes can be attributed to the technological advances and other situational changes. This essay is going to shed light upon whether the nature and character of war has been changed in the course of recent years or it continues to be the same as it was years ago.