The Just War Theory Is No Loss Of Human Life Justifiable?

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.

The damage of wars is way too much that it should never happen under any circumstance. No one should ever initiate a war and claim it justified. Let’s see why war should not be justified.

How can a war be truly just? Even if the war begins with good intention, innocent people can be harmed or killed and their property and land destroyed. Many people feel that all violence is wrong while there are many who accept war as the only option in a particular circumstance. For example, many people who joined the First Crusade felt as though they were doing the right thing. After all, Jerusalem was the home of Jesus, so Christians felt the fight was justified.

One important theory within International Relations shows a moral aspect on how to conduct war. This theory is called Just War Theory. Just War Theory is a doctrine of military ethics from a philosophical and Catholic viewpoint. This theory consists of two parts: Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and Jus in bello (right conduct within war).

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

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 just war theory has a long history. Parts of the Bible hint at ethical behavior in war and concepts of just cause, announcing the justice of war by divine intervention.

One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.

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)

A just war is defined as a war that is deemed as morally or theologically justifiable. One individual who shares this view is St. Thomas Aquinas, a man of theology studies, and someone with his own conditions on just war. Aquinas believes that there are three conditions that need to be met for a war to be justified. First, someone who has authority must wage war. Second, those who are attacked must be deserving of this war. Lastly, a war is only justified if it benefits the citizens. In my opinion, the U.S involvement in dealing with ISIS meets the criteria of a just war.

Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.

The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. The circumstances of Just-War Theory must be of: Last Resort, Legitimate Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Right Intention, Proportionality, and Civilian Casualties.

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

From the various points and examples given, it is clear the war is unjustified in many ways as it involves mass killings and is unethical, it destroys economies, having an impact on people and the country physically, and it causes great harm to a society, especially children. However, it can also be justified, only under very strict circumstances where it can prove to be

While there are no main criteria, there are a few that the Just War Doctrine follows. The criteria for using military force under Just War Doctrine follows three sections with sub-categories following them. Those three categories are jus ad bellum (what justifies going to war), jus in bello (how combatants must act), and jus post bellum (how war must be terminated). Jus ad bellum encompasses just cause, legitimate authority, formal declaration, among other reasons that justify going to war. Jus in bello refers to the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), proportionality, and no atrocious weapons. Jus post bellum is about public declaration and authority and the ways in which wars should end.