The Relevance Of Just War Tradition

Just war can be traced back to the pagan teachings, which was later refined by Christian leaders to justify their followers into going to war (Cahill, 2005). St. Augustine was identified as the first to offer his view on war and justice, viewing war as a necessary evil if peace and justice were to come and labeling it as something practical when conflict arises. Later on, St. Thomas Aquinas revised Augustine’s version and added three more conditions: the war had to be waged by the proper authority, the cause had to be just, and the intentions had to be right. All of these additions and refinements lead to the same just war theory that we are familiar with today (Baer, 2006).

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, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

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)

According to Hedley Bull, war is “organized violence waged by sovereign states” which was the outcome of a “process of limitation or confinement of violence” via the ethical doctrine of just war theory. Clausewitz classified warfare as not just an act, but also a social institution for obtaining ulterior objectives (e.g. political) and strategic lines of command within and between states. He defined the social relationship between forces and the elements of war (rationality, chance and violence). Martin Shaw claims that contemporary warfare has completely evolved so that the “core of the new mode of warfare is a different general relationship between war fighting and the political, economic, and cultural-ideological domains.” (Nowaczynski, J. (2012, December). E-International Can

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.

The concept behind the “Just War” theory is something developed in a early time but it became more developed in the Middle Ages. The criteria for determining if a war is a “Just War” or not is based on the Just war theory is the effort to decide between a justified and unjustified uses of armed forces. I feel the Just war theory is the best way to determine it military involvement is need in in certain situations. I feel like the this versus from the word of God has to say about this subject in Psalms 28:4 is, “Give to them according to their work and according to the evil of their deeds; give to them according to the work of their hands; render them their due reward” (Psalms 28:4 ESV) The significance behind this versus say give to them what they deserve based on the actions. This relates to a just war because it shows that evil deeds have been done then it justified for there to be a “just war” based their actions of evil. I feel like a example of a “Just War” that the USA needs to become more involved in the helping defend Israel. The versus in Numbers 24:9 describes this very well on what the USA should be doing for the nation of Israel “He crouched; he lay down

The intent of this review is to evaluate the concept of "Just Post Bellum" that the article 's author, Gary J. Bass, developed through an empirical theoretical research about the doctrine of Just War. The way the author adapts the evidence found in the speeches of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter makes us think he tends to justify somewhat recent interventions the United States made in the Middle East when he says: "Both presidents explained that for a free state a just war, must show not only that went to war for good reasons, but also that their conduct war was consistent with that purpose: to help make the most stable region and safe, and leaving affected populations less subject to violence and oppression." However, Gary J. Bass also provides constructive criticism and compiles theoretical concepts of importance of various classical and contemporary authors from the realistic-idealistic point of view of several events that promote an understanding of clear concepts of Just War and their relevance in the context of a globalized world. The author refutes the conventional perception that "Political leaders often invoke postwar evolution as bringing democracy or stability as part of justifying or condemning a war," (P. 384), when in reality other standards of postwar evolution exist.

“We know war is bad. Yet sometimes it is necessary to fight. But still war is bad and any man who says it is not is a liar,” stated E Hemmingway. In this quote by Hemingway, he suggests that war in general is and can be considered almost as cruel as a crime that is committed. In the article “The Ethics of War” it suggests “that it is necessary to consider not just the paper justification of war but the balance of good it will bring to mankind.”

The Catholic Faith has certain doctrines about the concept of war. This doctrine states that a war must be just; one must do everything possible to avoid war. Even when all means were taken to bypass war, there are some matters when force is necessary to correct one’s manifest injustice. Therefore, war is permitted if there are no other ways to resolve the conflict, but must abide by these conditions:

Just War Theory Many people believe that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the Second World War to an end. However, whether these bombings were truly necessary and whether they led to the Japanese surrender have yet to be objectively determined. In times of war, countries reference just war theory, which outlines how to carry out ethical warfare. When examining the aforementioned bombings, it becomes apparent that they violated the concepts of just war as they killed so many citizens and that they were unnecessary despite how the war’s conclusion followed the occurrences.

The theory of just war has been around for several centuries. According to Ramsey and Walzer, the notion of wars being just or unjust has been debated since the fifth century B.C. E. However, it was not until Aristotle that the term “Just War” was conceived to refer to the wars initiated by Hellenes against non-Hellenes (Russell, 3). In the years after Aristotle, the just war theory was placed on the back burner. The next time it came up was in the early years of the Christian empire. Traditionally, the men of the Christian army were nonviolent. As a result of not fighting, they were unable to protect themselves and their land from invaders. With this in mind, Augustine was able to justify fighting by declaring “that war itself was not intrinsically evil but, rather, going to war for the love of violence, cruelty enmity, greed, lust of power and ambition were the real evils from which the Christians should protect themselves” (C. Taslaman and F. Taslaman).

Yes, I see the difference between how the video’s author defined the list compared to the official statement. In the official list there is the preamble and different articles involved. These things are all involved when it comes to human rights. These things help when it comes to Just War Theory, human rights, and United Nations.

It is agreeable that war is never just; it is relatively cruel and sometimes unnecessary. The idea of a just war is too idealistic, but so is avoiding war all together. As much as some want to keep away from such a thing, it is significantly out of the question to entirely eradicate war. War has existed for so long it is absolutely inevitable to get away from it, “War was an inescapable process for the settlement of differences in the absence of any higher common jurisdiction… For better or worse war was an institution which could not be eliminated from the international system” (Zinn, 200). No matter how much one tries to follow just ideals as a way of setting differences aside, there are times where fighting back is going to be necessary by

According to Thomas Hobbes, “The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state; the natural state is one of war.” Throughout history, humans are continually at war with one another. Beginning with the Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt in 3100 B.C., there were one or more wars taking place every five hundred years. Some wars reach a conclusion in a few months, while others last several years. For example, England and France spent over a hundred years at war with each other between the years 1337 and 1453. The original reason behind the start of the Hundred Years’ War, was the end of a line of hereditary rulers. Edward Ⅲ of England sparked the conflict with France by venturing to declare a claim to the French throne. In fact, the end of the Hundred Years’ War set another war in motion. Henry Ⅵ of England’s decision to abandon the war with France is thought to have played a part in igniting the War of the Roses in England (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). This conflict was drawn out for so long over considerably insignificant reasons, it is easy to argue that war is a human condition. If war is a constant human condition, are any wars justified? As said by James Hillman, “Wars could not happen unless there were those willing to help them happen…. Once the enemy is evil, any means to kill the enemy becomes right—or so we are told. And once caught up in the horror of killing and death, how does a man survive?” If this