Just War Theory Research Paper

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.

In 1814 and 1815 President Andrew Jackson became famous for when he demolished the British Army in the war of Battle of New Orleans. What most people do not know is that Jackson suspended the court order of habeas corpus and the declaration of war. Well habeas corpus is a court order requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. So Jackson suspended this law so that he could bring in people he needed to win the war with New Orleans, which brings us to the declaration of war. Declaration of war is a formal act which one state goes to war against another. The declaration is a speech acting by an authorized party of a national government, to create a state of war between two states. Now you are probably wondering

When is it justifiable to engage in war? This question has plagued humanity for centuries and continues to do so. The theory of just war addresses three important questions when considering and dealing with war. These components are when is it justifiable to go to war, the right ways to conduct proceedings during war, and the justification of terminating war. The first part of the theory, originally written in Latin as jus ad bellum, is an important idea within Pope Urban II’s, “Speech at Clermont.” In the 11th century Pope Urban II gave this speech as a call for crusade with the hope of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim control. They eventually succeeded in this mission and took the city of Jerusalem. The “Speech at Clermont,” is now an important source for understanding the justifications of going to war within the medieval just war theory. Throughout the speech Pope Urban II justified the crusade by claiming it was the responsibility of the Christian people to regain the Holy Land, to protect their fellow Christians in the East, and their duty to stop the “disgraceful” and “demon worshipping” Muslim people.

This paper will define and determine the criteria for warfare, argue that neither the 9/11 attacks nor the resulting counterterrorism reactions take after the conventional standards of Just War theory: these events cannot be portrayed as just under the guidelines of jus ad bellum or jus in bello. More importantly, the events should not be classified or regarded as a war. Rather, these related acts are criminal offences that were toss under the label of warfare due to the American interpretation of 9/11 as a ‘first strike’ tactic which in turn prompted a military response, setting in motion an international standard. The resulting ‘war’ has arguably been a series of violations of international law.

What is the Just War theory and how did it pertain to St. Augustine? According to Augustine there is no private right to kill. According to Paul Ramsey opposes in The Just War, Christian participation in warfare “was not actually an exception to the commandment, “you shall not murder” but instead an expression of the Christian understanding of moral and political responsibility. One can kill only under the authority of God. St. Augustine argued that Christian rulers had such an obligation to make peace for the protection of his subjects even if the only way to eliminate such a threat was through force of arms. St. Augustine believed that in wars there was a right intention.

The U.S. Constitution allows the president and Congress to have big responsibilities on their military action, but there have been many debates how their war powers begin and the end has. The administration of Obama chose to make a decision in August 2013 to look for congressional authority to have a military strike in Syria. They wanted this for the use of the chemical weapons. This has caused a new debate on the need for the president to request approval. In the past, the administration's major military, participating in NATO air strikes in 2011 against Libya was informed that the congressional approval was not needed from the military because the operation for constitutional purposes was not for war. Obama's actions were in favor of

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

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

One of the oldest traditions in religious ethics is that of the just war. The "Just War Theory" specifies under which conditions war is just. Opposition based on the Just War Theory differs from that of pacifists. Oppositionists oppose particular wars but not all war. Their opposition is based on principals of justice rather than principles of pacifism (Becker 926).

In war every combatant, just or unjust, poses a certain type of threat. On the two opposite ends of the spectrum a combatant poses either a culpable threat or an excused threat. If a combatant poses a culpable threat he poses a threat of wrongful harm to others and he is not justified, premised, nor excused in his actions (McMahan 159). If a combatant poses an excused threat, he poses a justified threat of harm and is therefore fully excused for his actions.

This essay will define the conditions required for a just war and then explore whether there are times when these conditions can be disregarded. It will then examine Walzer’s concept of such supreme emergency exemptions and what is required for this idea to be convincing. Referring to objections raised by Coady and Pike it will then argue that the ‘supreme emergency’ concept does not meet these requirements.

On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was taken by complete surprise when terrorist invaded and struck U.S. soil. That same week President Bush orders an International War on terror. Just war theory was largely used after the attacks on America. George Bush is one of the first presidents to actually try to follow the entire standard of Just War Theory.

There are other people that argue that, they are fighting for what is right. Which is a great argument to have, but it is one thing to argue that on a personal scale but when whole nations get involved that notion becomes a little more hazy. In Alexander Moseley’s article Just War Theory he quotes Michael Walzer, a American political theorist and author of books such as “Just and Unjust Wars” and “Spheres of Justice”. Walzer’s view of killing and the justification for killing anyone is this: “...Modern warfare dissolves the possibility of discrimination: civilians are just as necessary causal conditions for the war machine as are combatants, therefore, they claim, there is no moral distinction in targeting an armed combatant and a civilian

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

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