Just War Theory Research Paper

Christianity preaches peace and loving your neighbor but for the history of christianity, there has been violence and war in its name. For Many years people have been killing other human beings in the name of christ or justifying their killings by saying that the war is in the name of god. The belief that violence and war can be justified is called the “Just War Theory.”

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has permeated the minds of Americans from the right wing to the left wing. Most agree that something needs to be done to ensure the safety and security of the United States of America, but what exactly needs to be done is an entirely separate argument. If ISIS launched a series of attacks against American embassies and caused mass casualties overseas, it is the United States’ responsibility as the indispensable nation to act against the threat and for those who cannot fight for themselves. War, in this case, would be a justifiable act under the Just War Theory.

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).

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

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.

including our adversaries. Truth is too big, and we are each to limited, to think

During President Richard Nixon’s term, he advocated for “Vietnamization,” to remove American troops and allow South Vietnam a larger role in rising against the Communist North (“Overview of the Vietnam War”). Nixon’s method to stall the influx of North Vietnamese soldiers and supplies into South Vietnam by directing American troops to terminate Communist supply bases in Cambodia. This defied Cambodian neutrality and consequently provoked a national outcry.

The concept behind the “Just War” theory is something developed in a early time but it became more developed in the Middle Ages. The criteria for determining if a war is a “Just War” or not is based on the Just war theory is the effort to decide between a justified and unjustified uses of armed forces. I feel the Just war theory is the best way to determine it military involvement is need in in certain situations. I feel like the this versus from the word of God has to say about this subject in Psalms 28:4 is, “Give to them according to their work and according to the evil of their deeds; give to them according to the work of their hands; render them their due reward” (Psalms 28:4 ESV) The significance behind this versus say give to them what they deserve based on the actions. This relates to a just war because it shows that evil deeds have been done then it justified for there to be a “just war” based their actions of evil. I feel like a example of a “Just War” that the USA needs to become more involved in the helping defend Israel. The versus in Numbers 24:9 describes this very well on what the USA should be doing for the nation of Israel “He crouched; he lay down

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.

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

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.

Much like the rest of the world, wars in the United States began before it was even considered a country. The revolutionary war was a brave and noble war fought by America’s earliest ancestors in the 1770s in the hopes of creating a better country for their prosperity. However, because it was not declared by an esteemed government, some would argue that it was not actually considered “just”. With the American Civil War, there were so many factors involved that the argument could be made both ways (2). Today, it has been decreed that the Civil War was fought entirely as an opposition to slavery in the South; however, at the time of the war, many more questions could be made as to the official reason. Because those battles were fought so long ago, theorists may only use the little information left behind to determine the justification of warfare.

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.

In all of Human history, only 8% of that time has been completely at peace. From 150 million to 1 billion people in total have been killed by war. That’s 150 million families at least who have had their loved ones ripped from their grasp. This is far too many. War is unnecessary and barbaric. In “just and unjust war” by Howard Zinn the complexities of whether or not a war can be called just or unjust are debated. Peace can be achieved. the three crucial steps toward making world peace are education, open communication, and human rights laws must be strictly enforced.

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