Just War Theory, Using The Gulf War

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

According to James Pattison, just war theory covers many conditions and splits itself into two categories: one of them is jus ad bellum, which

The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the

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.

1A. The three conditions for a just war includes that war must be declared by proper authority, antagonist must be notified of the war declaration, and the antagonists must be given the opportunity to make peace before war begins. These are the necessary conditions for jus ad bellum. When a just war will begin, proper authorities must declare the war to the public. It must be a person of official purpose in the state, not a random citizen. The antagonist must be notified of the war and not blind sided by war in any type of way.

According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

Aquinas argues that one of the objectives in order to make a war justified is when a legitimate authority declares it. Typical it is usually a country's top leadership that would count as legitimate authority, however in the United States it is not the President who can legally declare

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 consist of several criterias, all of which must be met in order for a war to be just. In the most recent reading of Summa Theologica, Aquinas is not in favor of war, but suggest the point of force. While individuals should not resort immediately to violence, God has given the sword to the government for a good reason. St. Thomas Aquinas lists out the three components for a war to be just. First, war must be waged by the authority of the sovereign state (whose waging the war). Second, there needs to be a just cause rather than for self-gain. Lastly, rightful intentions and the advancement of good in a state needs to be

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

This essay examines whether or not airpower, along with its technological advances, improved or diminished the United States (US) ability to wage war according to the tenets of jus in bello. The goal of war should not be total annihilation of the enemy without regard to life and property. Although there are many perspectives on this topic, most philosophers believe technologically advanced air power has gone outside the realm of jus in bello. However, based on careful analysis, research shows leaders are required to follow the laws of war and exercise sound judgment. This argument is supported by examining just war theory and the key tenet jus in bello as it applies to technological advances in airpower.

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

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'.