Can there ever be a just war on terror A Just War is a war which is fought, however, conducted under certain rules and regulations; these were created by Thomas Aquinas and Francisco de Vitoria. (Anon,[n.d]a), This theory is used as a means of showing those who are going to war, excluding those which classify under the regulations, that going to war is wrong and were deemed immoral. The intentions which were used to forward this process were to encourage the other states that there are other means of resolving conflict and to prevent war. The conditions of a Just War are that the choice of engaging in war is the last option and the probability of success is to be weighed. The war must be fought by a recognised legal authority, (the …show more content…
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), There is evidence that wars have been fought in the past and these rules and guidelines have been met. Using World War Two (1939-1945) for this example, it can be shown that this was a Just War. World War Two was fought by Germany and the Allied Countries legal authorities (Filipini, 2003). The rule, in regards to ‘…correcting evil’ was followed another means to this war was to correct the evil Hitler was doing in Germany and with the Nazis. The allied countries weighed up their probability of
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)
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace and safety. The just war can only be waged as a last resort requiring that all reasonable non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war can be just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. An array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare.
Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.
Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.
1A. The three conditions for a just war includes that war must be declared by proper authority, antagonist must be notified of the war declaration, and the antagonists must be given the opportunity to make peace before war begins. These are the necessary conditions for jus ad bellum. When a just war will begin, proper authorities must declare the war to the public. It must be a person of official purpose in the state, not a random citizen. The antagonist must be notified of the war and not blind sided by war in any type of way.
The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. The circumstances of Just-War Theory must be of: Last Resort, Legitimate Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Right Intention, Proportionality, and Civilian Casualties.
One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.
St. Thomas Aquinas is another great theologian of the Catholic Church who believed in Just War Theory. St. Aquinas explained three conditions under which war could be justified. First, there must be a Sovereign authority under which war is waged, and a private individual has no capacity to wage war. Aquinas argues that, those in authority are responsible for the general good of the city, kingdom or province under them, and they are allowed by law to use the sword to defend that good from internal disturbance from evildoers. In the same way, Aquinas argues that it is the responsibility of the authority to use the sword to defend the common good from external foes. Therefore, it is Aquina’s stand that those not in positions of power cannot declare war. This is because the defense of the public is the responsibility of the legal authority
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
In this essay’s scope, the Syrian war has been analyzed using the just war theory. The just war theory highlights situations where waging a war can be justifiable and also provides guidelines on how a war should be fought. In as much as the theory recognizes the need to protect innocent human life even when it involves the use of force, the theory puts in place several principles that need to be met to qualify a war as being just. As for the Syrian situation, the bone of contention is whether the proposed US military intervention is justifiable or not. Those who are for a US military intervention observe that the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention. They point out that an intervention would protect further loss of innocent human life. Those against such a move point out some guidelines that have not been met to merit such an intervention as a just
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.
Bradley Nabong Professor Alexander Novak PHIL 001 14 June 2017 Just War Theory: Establishing a Morally Justified War War has been prevalent since the dawn of civilization and is responsible for shaping the world into the society we live in today. It can be defined as a “state of open and usually declared armed conflict between political entities such as sovereign states or between rival political or social factions within the same state” (Mark). There are many philosophical speculations that can be made about the concept of war. The existence of war in general is another philosophical dilemma, possibly beyond the control of human nature.
The theory consist of several criterias, all of which must be met in order for a war to be just. In the most recent reading of Summa Theologica, Aquinas is not in favor of war, but suggest the point of force. While individuals should not resort immediately to violence, God has given the sword to the government for a good reason. St. Thomas Aquinas lists out the three components for a war to be just. First, war must be waged by the authority of the sovereign state (whose waging the war). Second, there needs to be a just cause rather than for self-gain. Lastly, rightful intentions and the advancement of good in a state needs to be
Jus in Bello falls between two broad categories of discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination and proportionality are key factors that must be considered when engaging in war. For example, Michael Walzer argues, “war should only occur between combatants – soldier to soldier and noncombatants should be shielded from harm”. 2 Essentially, this means during times of conflict only legitimate targets should be targeted, combatants should distinguish against whom is attacked and should not include innocent bystanders. Furthermore, Alexander Moseley states, “In waging war, it is considered unfair and unjust to attack indiscriminately since non-combatants or innocents are deemed to stand outside the field of war”. 3 Unfortunately, this can be difficult at times since it may be hard to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant especially since they do not always wear a uniform or carry arms, making it impossible to distinguish between them.
This essay intends to define and give an overview of the ‘Principles of War', the philosophers that coined these principles and with examples from the various countries that used and have their own perspectives on the ‘Principles of War'.