Just Post Bellum By Gary J. Bass

In his analysis and rebuttal of Walzer’s article, Tesón notes that Walzer does concede that “elimination of ISIS and the establishment of political structures that would prevent its resurgence, would constitute a just end;” albeit with such extreme difficulty that Walzer believes would be near impossible. Tesón argues that within a specific just-war framework, synthesizing the arguments of Walzer and McMahan, such a just end would be possible. This framework emphasizes: (1) just cause as the main emphasis of intervention -- mainly that of humanitarianism and self-defense; (2) ground troops consisting of indigenous forces, such as the Kurds and Shiites, so as to not perpetuate the myth of western crusaders in their holy land; (3) jus in bello and the enforcement of Geneva conventions; (4) long-term planning and restructuring of the region via occupation to establish “political institutions that will secure peace, freedom from violence, the rule of law, and human rights… in a way that prevents the resurgence of ISIS or similar murderous organizations;” and (5) a “generous immigration” for those displaced by the

Jus a bellum, the right to go to war, explicitly describes how a nation-state should conduct itself before preparing for war. There are seven sub-categories within Jus a bellum: Just Cause, Comparative Justice, Competent Authority, Right Intention, Profitability of Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality. Just Cause is explained as needing to have a

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.

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.

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq not only signalled the beginning of the Iraq War, but also demonstrated the power and unchallenged military dominance of the United States. Unlike the first Gulf War, many of the US public, media and officials criticized the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq by questioning the legality and the evidence used to justify the war. These arguments as to whether the Bush Administration was justified in its use of hard power to invade Iraq are diverse and disputed among many historians. The opinions of several historians including Pollack, Mearsheimer and Siilberman, in conjunction with the primary accounts of US president George W. Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein create a conflicting and questionable

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 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.

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

The “just cause criterion is central in the “just war” doctrine. When assessing the sufficient “just cause” reasons the principle of self-defence is undoubtedly tolerable. It can be extended to the reason of assisting aid to victims of oppression or external threat (Moseley n.d.). Following this principle, the mass murder of the Syrian civilians by the government forces that reached nearly 40000 (Aloyo 2014) create a justified cause for the USA and the international community in general. However, in the case of Syria using forces against the aggression as a whole will be an impossible task, as both parties

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

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

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'.

the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.