Terrorism and the Just War Tradition Essay

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.

While the facts of Truman’s decision to drop the bombs have been evaluated time and time again, just as public opinion regarding the bombs has evolved over time, so has the context in which the history of the event must be evaluated. While historians of generations past may simply have examined Truman’s rationale for dropping the bomb, those who continue to be intrigued by the issue demand an explanation in-tune with current sentiment regarding the bomb drop. They require a full-scale examination of the many complex legal and moral facets of the issue. Thus, this paper strives to give them what they desire: initially, an in-depth investigation into the evidence available for President Truman in making his decision to drop the bomb; second, a discussion of universal wartime morality, its implications on World War II and the bomb drop, and a look at how the concept of total war may have reshaped the laws of war; third, an evaluation of the atomic bombing with regards to international law; and finally, a look at the bombing through the Presidential powers enumerated in the United States Constitution. These key facets of the issue will provide readers with a comprehensive examination of the bomb drop issue that attempts to reevaluate the validity

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)

The equation of dealing with terrorism on an ethical level is complicated by its components not connected to an official state. Just War theory sets a list of checkpoints before a just war can be declared (Snauwaert 2004). This list is known as the Jus ad Bellum and is comprises, but not limited to: just cause, right authority, right intention, proportionality, reasonable hope of success, and last resort (Snauwaert 2004).

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

They say all is fair in Love and war, but at what point do the blurry lines of right and wrong become clear? A common belief is that any action can be justified if it’s for the greater good, but it’s my belief that every action must be judges individually. We must tear apart the true reasons behind our actions and discover weather it is truly for the greater good or not. During World War II (1939-1945), August 6, 1945, The U.S. released the world’s first deployed atomic bomb over the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Just 4 days later we dropped another bomb on the city of Nagasaki.

'In war some sorts of restraint, both on what we can legitimately fight for (jus ad bellum) and on how we may legitimately fight (jus in bello), are morally required'.1 However, recent theorists also add the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus post bellum) to the main two categories of just war theory. From Christian perspective the function of the JWT was simply an excuse of making war morally and religiously possible writes Michael Walzer. He also agrees with its defendants, that it made war possible in a world where war was, sometimes, necessary. JWT is therefore to be used as a sort of moral rule-book from which legitimate

The just war theory deals with the justification that war is morally admissible. The just war theory attempt to conceive of how the use of armed forces can be more humane to establish lasting peace and justice. In recent wars, the United States has turn to God for guidance and strength in the war on terrorism. The Catholic Church wants to renounce the “just war’ doctrine because it is inconsistent with peace and nonviolence. The United States has not been committed to the existence of mass destruction with grave violations of mass violence during World War II. The law of double-effect undertake the actions of good and evil to meet the requirements of the

Although wars cause much devastation in countries even in the world, the Just War Theory may be applied to determine whether or not a war was justly distributed through particular principles and conditions. Led by the United States in Iraq, the Gulf War caused much controversy and tension between nations. Not only did it left a scar on foreign policy but the citizens of Iraq were greatly affected. Through Thomas Aquinas Just War Theory principles and Catholic teachings, the Iraq war can be proven to be an unjust conflict due to a large number of casualties, expensive costs, and unsuccessful turnabout.

The intent of this review is to evaluate the concept of "Just Post Bellum" that the article 's author, Gary J. Bass, developed through an empirical theoretical research about the doctrine of Just War. The way the author adapts the evidence found in the speeches of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter makes us think he tends to justify somewhat recent interventions the United States made in the Middle East when he says: "Both presidents explained that for a free state a just war, must show not only that went to war for good reasons, but also that their conduct war was consistent with that purpose: to help make the most stable region and safe, and leaving affected populations less subject to violence and oppression." However, Gary J. Bass also provides constructive criticism and compiles theoretical concepts of importance of various classical and contemporary authors from the realistic-idealistic point of view of several events that promote an understanding of clear concepts of Just War and their relevance in the context of a globalized world. The author refutes the conventional perception that "Political leaders often invoke postwar evolution as bringing democracy or stability as part of justifying or condemning a war," (P. 384), when in reality other standards of postwar evolution exist.

Purposeful bombing of civilians during war has been a common occurrence, but the ethicality of such a practice has been called into question. Generally, there tends to be a great aversion to intentionally causing harm without reasonable basis, yet this type of strategy is still in use. Is the bombing of innocent people justified if it ultimately brings an end to the war? The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II clearly exemplifies the ethical question of whether bombing civilians was right or wrong.

The first and arguably the most important condition of the just-war doctrine is just cause. Theorists will argue that starting conflict is unjust and gives just cause for self-defense. Just cause could result from various acts of aggression such as physical injuries, political insult, a trade restrictions, or even to rising powers. With various scenarios being able to provide just cause, it is up to theorists to maintain a solid and consistent definition of what constitutes just cause. Self-defense against physical conflict is the only absolute indicator of just

The conflict between the Allies and the Axis was a horrific and deadly one, which consisted of genocide and mass bombings. Innocent citizens were killed with the estimated sixty million casualties, which lead to the question as to the morality of the different actors—Germany, Japan, England and America— in WWII. In order to truly assess their guilt, meaning their moral innocence, each country will be measured upon the morality of their intent and execution of the different controversial mass killings that Germany (the Holocaust), Japan (Nanking), and the Allied forces (Dresden and Hiroshima) took part in. This hierarchy of evil can be judged upon how Japan’s tyranny and the Allies’ area bombing compare to the genocide performed by Germany. Similarly, these countries will be judged on the whether these different acts were premeditated versus in response to another act, as well as the proportionality to which these acts were carried out. This measurement of evil places each party on an overall scale, which depicts the total guilt that each country or countries deserve. WWII exemplifies that while war is an unavoidable aspect of human nature, there is no such thing as a just war. Similarly, while there is a definite hierarchy of morality between the different actors of WWII, each of the countries at play are immoral in their intent and execution of the attacks on opposing countries.

The assumption that there are a morally significant achievements that can be made in war seems paramount to just war theory. Taking a life without certainty of of the necessity of doing so undermines the value of that life. Because international relations provides such an ambiguous and subjective subject matter to apply just killing theory to, pacifism seems to be the approach most likely to encourage peace.

The theory of just war is ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice. Augustine’s theory of Peace is affiliated with Aquinas’ theory of Just War. The primary goal of just war is to obtain peace. Just War Theory is a notion that partially involves issues of justice in philosophical, political, and religious aspects. The thought, for the most part, alludes not just to obtain the answer of whether the war is just, but additionally keeping in mind the end goal to comprehend why wars are, for the most part, fought. The theory of Just War has two sets of criteria: jus ad bellum (the