The Death Of A Just War

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.

Before waging a war, it is always a good idea to think of what the possible outcome could be in the situation; to look ahead before making an unalterable, life-changing move. In many cases, different people, not just religious, think of the Just War Theory as a plausible cause to take a look at before sending troops to fight a war that deem not necessary to be fought. In the fall of 2001, September 11, it was a day in infamy, a day that will always be remembered. Terrorist members attacked the United States through different tactics, and led to an almost never ending difference between the nations. Just War is the theory that war must have a just cause, which means force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil. It must also have the right intention, which means that force may be used only for that purpose, only to correct a wrong doing. It must have legitimate authority: only public authorities and officers have the ability to wage the war. It must have comparative justice which means that the goods must outweigh the bads, no matter how bad the other side hurt you. The probability of success must weigh in to it. How it will be effected overall- how much destruction is expected, how the goods are weighed out by the bads, etc. And finally, is it a last resort. That being said, force can only be used after there have been peaceful alternatives. All of that being said, the question of the United States being sent

This theory would categorize the wars as just and unjust, respectively. The Just War Theory has its roots in philosophy and has four major components. For a war to be considered just, the country must have the right to go to war, have a just cause, with just intentions, and it must be the last resort. These guidelines are set into

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

What is the point of getting involved in something that doesn't directly affect you? Why would the US think about sending troops to fight ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) when ISIS isn’t directly threatening the US? The United States cannot allow ISIS to continue developing because the more power they gain, the more threat they will pose. In addition,a larger commitment of American forces towards fighting the difficult ISIS enemy could galvanize other countries to fight with the US. ISIS started as a small group of Al Qaeda.

Just war theory includes the justification of the how and why that wars are fought. The justification of war can be either viewed from a theoretical or historical perspective. The theoretical aspect regards justifying war in an ethical manner and the specific forms that combat may or may not involve. The historical aspect, or the just war tradition," deals with the rules or agreements that have been applied to wars throughout time. Ethics examine institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire about whether aspects of the conventions should be altered.

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).

Typically, theories of what contitutes a just war include several different criteria. These can be split into categories: those concerned with becoming involved in the war and those that are concerned with actions during the war. More recently there has been the added consideration of what is done following the war (how the triumphant nation treats its opponents once they've been beaten.) (Wikipedia)

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

There are many questions surrounding the topic of war. Should we fight? How do we win? Why are we fighting? The most debatable question of all is if the war is considered just.

Another principle of just war is reasonable chance of success, these principle advices nations not to resort to war when they see the results will be futile. For example if a small nation is attacked by a greater nation, it should not opt to go to war since it has no chance of success. Such a nation needs to do nothing and hope to make use of diplomatic resolution in the future.

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

Just War theory is a mainly Christian idea that wants to settle a few things about war. The first one being that, obviously, that taking a human life is wrong. Second being that states have to protect them people. Lastly, protecting them people and preserve the moral values might have need to use force and violence. The Just war Theory is to have some sort of guide for the correct way that states should act in a potential conflict situation, and it only applies to states.

ISIL or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been terrorizing the middle east for some years. Their terror has been felt all around the world. The senseless killing has been showcased all over the world in their social media campaign. However, ISIL has shown that when given response they thrive. Countries have given ISIL millions of dollars in order to save their hostages. America has stood strong and has not fell to their demands. We must not give into pressure from ISIL and must refrain from sending American boots on the Syrian and Iraqi ground. Americans should have learned from the war on Iraq that we must be tentative on entering another foreign war. A war against ISIL could be America’s next dark era of history.