The Importance Of Just War Theory

“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.

Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

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 Bradley Strawser’s “Moral Predators,” Strawser argues that “we are obligated to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) weapon systems if it can be shown that their use does not significantly reduce a warfighter’s operational capability.” By their very nature UAVs evoke many ethical questions most of which are addressed by Strawser, who stresses “there is no downside to UAVs.” I would argue there are certainly some downsides to this technology. The aim of this paper is to provide legitimate moral objections to using drones in warfare.

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.

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.

In today's modern culture we are plagued with the reality of war and with that comes many drawbacks. some of these drawbacks are the religious aspects for those soldiers fighting in the war. In the united states there are many different religious backgrounds of people. These religions can range from judaism to islam but the most prominent one is christianity. Studies show that at least 66 percent of active military members are christian(Dowd).

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.

“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

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 use of drones in battle fields remains to be one of the most divisive subjects in modern warfare. Use of unmanned aerial vehicles has become the hallmark of the war against terror. The move has elicited debate which is constantly gaining traction as more damming statistics are released on collateral damages associated with drone warfare. The United States has frequently deployed unmanned aerial vehicles to track down and kill enemy combatants and their leaders. Some of the notable killings were those of Jihad John, the brutal ISISi extremist famous for his execution of westerners in Syria and other al Qaeda commanders in restive terrains of northern Pakistan. Critics insist that the use of a unmanned aerial vehicles blurs the line between ethics and accountability. To back up their claims, they have pointed to the rising casualties of war where innocent persons are losing their lives as a result of drone strikes. Even though the use of unmanned aerial vehicles has been roundly criticized especially, by human rights bodies, it is clear that the tactic have been very effective in eliminating ruthless extremists. In my view, unmanned aerial vehicles have been instrumental in safeguarding the lives of many American soldiers while at the same time effectively executing its mandate be eliminating enemy combatants right inside their territories.

These clear violations of jus ad bellum principles with the use of drone strikes have also opened our eyes to moral dangers of drone warfare. This alienated war is easy and safe to use to prevent and provide surveillance on the battlefield. It also provides protection that militaries never by have UAV’s that “fight” in wars, discontinuing the risk of lives of American soldiers. However, since drones are the “new soldiers”, public support and not required to execute drone warfare, let alone have an open debate if these strikes are done in secret.

Advancements in warfare technology and weaponry have been the defining factors in battle since the dawn of civilization. The one with the bigger gun usually wins. This is a fact that hasn’t changed much since the beginnings of warfare and holds true today and in today’s world Drones have become the next warfare advantage. Along with any advancement in warfare weaponry comes a very heated and controversial discussion about its actual real-world utilization. Many argue that the use of Drones in war is unmoral and unethical. This paper aims to take a closer look at both sides of this argument. First, I will establish and explain the moral arguments against the use of drone

Drones or unmanned aircraft are like a hammer or gun. They are tools. They are not inherently good or bad. How they are used becomes the ethical issue at hand. Drones have a broad spectrum of wage; from the delivery of pizza, to weather forecasting, to weapons platforms in armed conflict. It is the purpose of this paper to show the use of drones in warfare is necessary and can be ethically justified using the principles of both deontology and utilitarianism. The fact that drones are remotely controlled, sometimes from great distances, does not remove the operators from responsibility, no more than the bullet fired from a gun, it is still the responsibility of the soldier who fired it.

Jus in Bello falls between two broad categories of discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination and proportionality are key factors that must be considered when engaging in war. For example, Michael Walzer argues, “war should only occur between combatants – soldier to soldier and noncombatants should be shielded from harm”. 2 Essentially, this means during times of conflict only legitimate targets should be targeted, combatants should distinguish against whom is attacked and should not include innocent bystanders. Furthermore, Alexander Moseley states, “In waging war, it is considered unfair and unjust to attack indiscriminately since non-combatants or innocents are deemed to stand outside the field of war”. 3 Unfortunately, this can be difficult at times since it may be hard to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant especially since they do not always wear a uniform or carry arms, making it impossible to distinguish between them.