Just War Essay

The just war theory has been considered one of the greatest oxymorons. How could an act that involves so much bloodshed and destruction be considered just? And how could peace be achieved through such violence? It is said that “All who take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Aquinas 484). Does that then mean that all wars should be condemned along with all who partake in it? According to St. Thomas Aquinas, not all acts of war can be justified; however, there are certain instances when a state should take up arms against another that threatens the peace and the safety of any group people. Yet, the battles and wars waged must not be of malicious intent, such as to humiliate, revenge, or simply destroy the other side. Therefore, it is the right of a nation to protect its people against an enemy and to take military actions if a direct threat is made against them, and if those military actions are executed solely for the purpose of the restoration of peace and the protection of those in danger, then any blood shed shall not be on the hands of those defending, but instead they shall hold the tools needed for peace.

The just war theory states that 'for a war to be called a just war it

The Gulf war was a brutal 7 month war that felt the full fury of the United Nations. The war effort possessed new technology and new ways of conducting war, but were these new ways justified and made true with the Just war Theory? The criteria of the Just war theory clearly identify that Fair Treatment of Prisoners must be upheld, No Atrocious Weapons to be used in combat and the War must be Committed for a Just Cause.

War is generally considered a to be a heinous act, a harbinger of death, destruction and disaster. War is often fought for ignorant reasons such as wealth and property, although defence and fighting for the greater good is often exhibited through history. Its facile to claim that war is unjustifiable under personal or political reasons, or that it’s a waste of human life and that passive resistance is the key. Nevertheless, in opposition, there are particular circumstances in which war is justifiable. Examples of this are: Under international bodies of law (Geneva and Haug conventions), the principals of the ‘just war theory’ which is in stark contrast to 2 other approaches on the concept of war, being ‘Pacifism’ and ‘Realism’, as well as Islamic reasoning on the conduct, “darurah” (necessity) and justifications of initiating or continuing conflict as well as theoretical and historical understandings of what it means for a war to be just. An ongoing example being the war on Israeli occupation by the Palestinians, another example being the British interference in the Second World War against the belligerent Nazi regime. Although, in retrospect, the Second World War is also used in pacifist ideologies, against war justification. Various academic enumerations interpret and apply the renowned “just war Theory” including Peter S.Temes’s “The just war: an American reflection on the morality of war in our times as well as discussions on the Islamic etiquettes of war in Youssef H.

All across the world, countries are drowning in the acts of warfare. Citizens residing in unescapable conditions due to war are suffering and likely calling out to other nations for help. It is proven that fighting violence with more violence does not draw a solution. The question of war being morally justifiable is one most easily answered by ancient and modern philosophers: it is not. For war induces a great deal of all those involved, promotes unnecessary violence, and overall it prevents the expansion of the human race.

1. A. According to Aquinas the 3 conditions for just war are: proper authority, a just cause, and a right intention. The first condition, proper authority, specifies that a war in order to be just must be declared by the authority of the head of a state. A declaration of war gives the opposite nation the opportunity to reconsider things and resolve the issue in a peaceful way. Only if the highest authority rejects or deny this opportunity a war is consider just.

There must be moral reasons going to war. First, it needs to be just and can’t be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have; innocent lives must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protected. In the U.S, a catholic explained, "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, , aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.” The Jus in Bello, an excessive part of the just war theory how forces and combatants should act.

Understanding, then, that the theory of just war is one in which many sources mingle over the course of centuries, it is helpful to make a brief overview of those sources before delving into the main task of explaining just war theory. B. MAIN SOURCES OF JUST WAR THEORY 1. The Religious Sources of Just War Theory Many of the key thinkers who have expounded on just war theory through the centuries have identified themselves with the Christian faith, both in its Catholic and Protestant varieties. Just war theory has also gained a general acceptance among Christian theologians, philosophers, and jurists as a method of passing judgement on the morality or immorality of a particular conflict.(8) The general Christian conception of just war theory forms the core of secular just war theory and as such has had a tremendous influence on the secular conception of the just war.(9) Early Christian approaches to war were largely pacifistic in nature, due to a focus in the early Church to the notion that Christians were distinct from the rest of society.(10) However, with the growing Christianization of the Roman Empire, and the increasing political and social influence of the Christian Church, Christian theologians during the fourth and fifth centuries began to develop justifications for the use of force which would eventually take

Jus ad bellum refers to the legitimacy of going to war. Having a just cause and possessing the right intention are part of the conditions in favour of a just war. It is generally assumed as just cause defending oneself from an act of aggression, which is believed unjust. However, because of its open-endedness, the term “aggression” should be defined. It could refer to a physical injury (a violation of territory), an offense (against national honour), a trade embargo (against economy), or even to a person’s prosperity (violation of social justice). Thus, the general consensus considers as only sufficient reason for just cause an initiation of physical

The term just is difficult to perfectly define as it is ultimately based on one’s own perspective. Different upbringings and backgrounds would influence one’s idea of the term just. Therefore, only an individual who has absolutely no sense of bias would be able to carry out the task of determining when a war would be considered justified and permissible. However, nobody is ever “bias-free”. Humans all come from upbringings that influence their

“[B]oth sides had seen, in a sad scrawl of broken earth and murdered men, the answer to the question….Neither race had won, nor could win, the War. The War had won, and would go on winning.”1 These are the words of Edmund Blunden, a British soldier who survived the Battle of the Somme, who came to the realization that nobody could claim victory in the twentieth-century mass warfare, because both winners and losers paid a high price. The new type of warfare launched in the twentieth-century had a great impact on the modern world that went beyond the immediate cost of casualties.2 The psychological, social, economic and technological effect these wars had on those who survived earned this type of conflict a new name: total war, which

You have to weigh up the pros and cons of war, you need to think about the situation and see if war is the right way to deal with it. In Just Ad Bellum, we have to guide our decisions weather or not we should go to war. There are seven principals of the Just Ad Bellum are: 1) There must be a just cause. 2) Waged by an appropriate authority. 3) The right intention. 4) Reasonable hope of success. 5) Total goods achieved through war must outweigh the total evils predicated because of the

I can’t believe we are doing this. Stooping to this low. Here is the incredulous 2idea my higher-ups came with. They want me to lead a troop to go deep in and capture revolutionaries to be executed later. Me! I am the General of the government forces. These workers wearing suits in offices have no idea how it is to be on the front lines of a battle, or anything relating to war. Part of me doesn’t care, because I don’t hate the rebels. I do my job, because it pays me well, I enjoy killing, and it gives me a high social status. I admire the rebels bravery. They have more bravery than the people who order me around. Respect doesn’t make me want to spare them, though. I especially hate those secret spies and whatnot. You know, the people who

While there are no main criteria, there are a few that the Just War Doctrine follows. The criteria for using military force under Just War Doctrine follows three sections with sub-categories following them. Those three categories are jus ad bellum (what justifies going to war), jus in bello (how combatants must act), and jus post bellum (how war must be terminated). Jus ad bellum encompasses just cause, legitimate authority, formal declaration, among other reasons that justify going to war. Jus in bello refers to the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), proportionality, and no atrocious weapons. Jus post bellum is about public declaration and authority and the ways in which wars should end.

Weird silence filled the air. It was a cold and relatively peaceful night on January 2005. Almost all citizens hid in their rooms to protect themselves from the war. The sky was completely dark with no light on streets. All of a sudden, the dark silent night was put to an end as six-year-old Samar Hassan was screaming and crying.