Ethical Theories Of Just War

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)

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.

Oranges and apples, both fruits, but yet both are totally different in taste, appearance, texture, and scent. However, they both grow on trees, both are round and both while tasting different are somewhat sweet. Like just war theory and pacifism, the two concepts are different yet similar at the same time. In this paper, I will attempt to show you, the reader how two opposing views on violence can be different; and at the same time share ideas and principles to make them similar. While the idea of just war theory and pacifism are different they share some of the same characteristics and fundamental concepts.

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.

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.

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 is a doctrine founded by Saint Augustine which has helped bring much discussion and debate to wars and the morality to fight in them. Wars and fights between people have gone on forever and are not perceived to stop anytime soon so it is important that some people thought about when and why they should ever fight. For many years Christians never part toke in this fighting due to teachings of the Bible and Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Saint Augustine would be one of the first to talk about how a Christian could be a soldier and serve God at the same time. Through this thought we would receive the Just War Theory which gave a set of requirements for someone to partake

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.

The just war theory deals with the justification that war is morally admissible. The just war theory attempt to conceive of how the use of armed forces can be more humane to establish lasting peace and justice. In recent wars, the United States has turn to God for guidance and strength in the war on terrorism. The Catholic Church wants to renounce the “just war’ doctrine because it is inconsistent with peace and nonviolence. The United States has not been committed to the existence of mass destruction with grave violations of mass violence during World War II. The law of double-effect undertake the actions of good and evil to meet the requirements of the

Just War Theory divides the morality of war into two parts. A war can be tried twice, first pertaining to why the nation decides to go to war, and secondly with how the nation actions are during the fighting (Walzer 21). The first part of war called jus ad bellem, translated to the justice of war, provides strict guiding principles with whether the war is just or unjust in the intentions of going to war. The second part of war jus in bello correlates to appropriate conduct while in war (Cook 27). Being just in jus ad bellum does not necessarily mean that jus in bello is just.

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

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

War must be waged in accordance with the purpose of establishing justice, expressing the “right intention”.

There has always been a great debate when to have a war. Many individuals debate whenever or not it is sinful to have war. Under Thomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory it makes the approach possible as it believes that it makes sense to discuss and debate the morality of war. Under the legitimate authorization aspect to the theory it believes that the decision of whenever to enter/start war must be made by proper legal authority and proper legal process, however there are many flaws among that theory. While the Just War Theory does put into consideration the five reasons of how to approach war, I will be arguing why the legitimate authorization of war to the theory is false.

There are two types of theories that are related to war. They are: ‘Just War Theory’ and ‘Pacifism’. Just war theory (Jus In Bello - “Law of war”) is a belief and a tradition on the ethics of war and peace. It justifies how and why are fought. The justification can be separated into historical or theoretical. The founders of “Just War Theory” are Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine. The historical aspects/ the just war theory deals with agreements or rules that are applied for a long time. For example, The UN Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions are international agreements that were organised by Just War Tradition and was considered whether it should be changed or not. Therefore, it is said that the tradition is very influential, controlling both morality and legally discussions about the war.