The Pros And Cons 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.

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).

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.

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.

This is clearly stated by Plato and Rawls as well as Walzer who point out that the aim of a just war is peace. However, peace is the opposite binary of war, highlighting the main contradiction in the just war theory. It would seem that a more reasonable theory would be one that aims to prevent war, a just peace theory. The importance of this just peace theory is accentuated by the era of nuclear deterrence we live in. Some argue that the existence of nuclear weapons of mass destruction requires a different approach to the problem because these weapons can only be used for unrestricted war and so the condition of proportionality, the sixth principle in Rawls work, can't be met if they are used. Using these weapons guarantees civilian casualties, and thus breaks a basic rule of the conduct of war. If we view nuclear deterrence through the lens of just war theory we would say that “a nation whose defence rests on the threatened use of nuclear weapons, therefore, has no genuine defence” (Hoekema 153). Even Walzer highlights that the invention of nuclear weapons alters war so much that our notions of morality—and hence just war theories—become redundant. However, against Walzer, it can be reasonably argued that although such weapons change the nature of warfare (for example, the timing, range, and potential devastation) they do not dissolve the need to consider their use within a moral framework: a

Just War Theory is a theory that is designed to explain how to morally start a war and moral ways of acting during a war. The different sections in the just war theory are Jus Ad Bellum, “right to war” and Jus In Bello “laws of war.” Within the just war theory there has been some speculation from pacifists, people who believe in resolving issues in a non-violent way. Brian Orend critiques a type of pacifism, deontological pacifism, the pacifism that discusses not having a war since it involves killing and killing involves violating a human being’s right to life. He argues that even though humans have a right to life there are certain things that can take that right way.

In the event that a war needs to exist, it must be certified by an authentic staff in government. Wars must be announced by a real government, yet we have a few individuals that out of the blue wage a war. I expected they called it Just Wars since it is to undue an uncalled for circumstance. Wars are to secure the powerless and innocence individuals to guarantee their prosperity. War is an appalling approach to look for peace and serenity, however not everybody is considerate, and ready to take a seat a concoct an assertion. The strategies that are utilized as a part of wars is to influence the adversary to stop whatever they are doing; appalling individuals are being sacrifice doing combat. Admirable just war's fundamental objectives are to

The just war theory states that 'for a war to be called a just war it

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

“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

“Just war” can be waged only as a last resort, when all other options are insufficient.

This essay intends to define and give an overview of the ‘Principles of War', the philosophers that coined these principles and with examples from the various countries that used and have their own perspectives on the ‘Principles of War'.