The Just War Theory Of War

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.

Throughout history, mankind have fought one another at great cost and for almost as long as people have been waging war, people have been asking questions surrounding the morality of war. In ancient Greece Aristotle raised a number of ideals that he believed should be adhered to, he believed that war needed to be regulated by a universal community under natural law. He also criticised the desire to conquer as a valid means of going to war. His views where based on the stoic tenants of virtue and reason. Aristotle’s teaching began to gain traction again in Europe during the 13th century, some of his teachings conflicted with the ideas of the Catholic Church which at the time was a major political power. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica began to combine the Church’s ideals with that of Aristotle’s to present a picture of how war should be. In order for a war to be just, states need to have the right motivations to go to war and they need to conduct themselves in a moral way while at war. This idea of Just War has evolved over the years through theorists such as Vitoria and has been criticised by others such as Erasmus. Now in the 21st century we have a slightly different much more secularised view of Just war. Political theorist Brian Orend, suggests that for a war to be truly just it must also have an ethical end, states must have a valid ‘exit strategy’ that doesn’t leave the country in chaotic ruins after the war. This essay will refer to numerous contemporary

Much like the rest of the world, wars in the United States began before it was even considered a country. The revolutionary war was a brave and noble war fought by America’s earliest ancestors in the 1770s in the hopes of creating a better country for their prosperity. However, because it was not declared by an esteemed government, some would argue that it was not actually considered “just”. With the American Civil War, there were so many factors involved that the argument could be made both ways (2). Today, it has been decreed that the Civil War was fought entirely as an opposition to slavery in the South; however, at the time of the war, many more questions could be made as to the official reason. Because those battles were fought so long ago, theorists may only use the little information left behind to determine the justification of warfare.

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).

A Just War is a war which is fought, however, conducted under certain rules and regulations; these were created by Thomas Aquinas and Francisco de Vitoria. (Anon,[n.d]a), This theory is used as a means of showing those who are going to war, excluding those which classify under the regulations, that going to war is wrong and were deemed immoral. The intentions which were used to forward this process were to encourage the other states that there are other means of resolving conflict and to prevent war.

The Vietnamese was very detrimental because several people died. Indeed, the Just War Wage Policies (JWPs) were famous with the Vietnam War of 1961-64. Critically, the JWPs might fail in certain war cases owing to several challenges such as terrorism, lethal weapons, and genocide issues, which render this policy ineffective. Therefore, it is important to re-think whether this policy was actually important in the Vietnam war, and through such an analysis, the scholars of history might be in a position to advise policy makers to either adopt or reject this war strategy. The Just Wage War Policy can be analyzed under different contexts. First, it is important to argue that the policy constitutes ‘jus ad bellum’, which justifies the underlying principles and reasons of taking the war advances.

Just war theory consist of 3 principles are Jus ad bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus post bellum. The first theory in just war is Jus ad bellum. Jean Elshstain’s book, Just War Theory perfectly details the standards of just war (Just War Theory) . Jus ad bellum is the consideration of war being right to enter. In jus ad bellum there are sub principles that should always be taken

The Gulf war was a brutal 7 month war that felt the full fury of the United Nations. The war effort possessed new technology and new ways of conducting war, but were these new ways justified and made true with the Just war Theory? The criteria of the Just war theory clearly identify that Fair Treatment of Prisoners must be upheld, No Atrocious Weapons to be used in combat and the War must be Committed for a Just Cause.

Augustine is highly acclaimed as the originator of the Just War theory. He founded a concept that would be built upon for many years to come. Augustine argued that war was sometimes sadly an unfortunate necessity to preserve order in society. He believed that wars should only be undertaken if they satisfy a certain criteria for a just war. McCellend notes how ‘the original condition of man's soul was innocence' but since the Fall the soul has been tainted and is thus incapable of achieving goodness. While Augustine was fundamentally against war as he believed it was sinful, he recognised that sometimes there were just wars that could be fought under Gods jurisdiction to obtain a just peace. This essay will examine the criteria that

The United States explicitly uses and recognizes the Just War Theory as a guide in order to justify going to war. In the Just War Theory there are a number of rules that are not suppose to be broken when at war: 1. Last Resort 2. Legitimate Authority 3. Just Cause 4. Probability of Success 5. Right Intention 6. Proportionality and 7. Civilian Casualties. When applied to the War in Iraq, three of these rules come under scrutiny due to devastating results of the war and they are just cause, proportionality and civilian casualties.

When discussing and and debating the many different concerns on when and how war can be fought justifiably many will think of “just war theory”. “Just war theory” is divided into two different parts. The two parts are the cause of war and the conduct of war (Rourke and Boyer, 2010, pg. 218). Jus and bellum is what the Western tradition has believed existed in many different cases. A few of those cases that were discussed are where the war is, a last resort, declared by legitimate authority, waged in self defense or to establish/restore justice, and fought to bring about peace (Rourke and Boyer, 2010, pg. 218). Therefore, jus in bello is just the conduct of war. Jus in bello includes most of the standards of proportionality and discrimination

However, based on the teachings by St. Thomas Aquinas, we believe that it is morally licit to go to war if all of the following criteria are met. International laws regarding the legitimacy of going to war is also rooted in the teachings of Aquinas. There are four conditions that dictate the justice to war. The first condition for Jus ad Bellum (justice to war) is possessing just cause. Aquinas spoke of having a “rightful intention.” We can go to war if we intend to advance some good and prevent a certain evil. Initiating acts of aggression is unjust and gives a group a just cause to defend itself. The damage inflicted by the aggression on the state or community of states must be lasting, grave, and certain. This condition indicates that there must be an aggressor who is harming another state or the community of states. War cannot be initiated simply to enlarge one’s own sphere of influence, conquering of new territory, subjugation of the peoples or obtaining wealth. A state can only go to war to counter aggression. An aggression that is temporary and mild wold not meet this condition it must be foreseen to have effect that are both lasting and

Alexander Moseley’s theory of ‘just’ war (2009) summarises conditions necessary for a nation’s involvement to be ‘just’ and provides a good framework to base scientific research around. Research dating back to the thirteenth century shows that public opinion declines as the war is perceived to be no longer worth fighting or ‘just’. His conditions are as follows: (Note that casualty count is omitted)

You have to weigh up the pros and cons of war, you need to think about the situation and see if war is the right way to deal with it. In Just Ad Bellum, we have to guide our decisions weather or not we should go to war. There are seven principals of the Just Ad Bellum are: 1) There must be a just cause. 2) Waged by an appropriate authority. 3) The right intention. 4) Reasonable hope of success. 5) Total goods achieved through war must outweigh the total evils predicated because of the

Theodore Roosevelt profoundly stated, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him.” This is the main idea of preemptive warfare. Gray stated that pre-emptive warfare means to strike first in the face of an attack that is either already underway (2007). Simply stated, he exclaimed that it is “the option of shooting on suspicion” (p. 6). If a country is aware that another nation or group is going to attack them, the theory of preemptive war states that it is not only strategic, but also ethically moral, to attack the enemy before they attack you. Because the free will of humankind disrupts our world, we must ask this question: Is preemptive warfare morally justified? This topic will be analyzed by looking that four different ethical systems. First, we will be analyzing Utilitarianism and the Christian worldview, which suppose that preemptive warfare is morally justified. Second, we will examine Cultural Relativism and Kantian ethics, which are two systems that don’t fully support or negate that preemptive warfare is morally justified.