War As Institution Is Guided By Many Rules That Specify

The Just War Theory is a set of criteria that are used to judge whether a war is morally justifiable. It was St Augustine in the third century that formulated the Just War theory, and was formalised 10 centuries later by Thomas Aquinas. There are seven criteria by which a war can be judged to be just. Among the rules are Just Cause – there must be a very good reason for going to war, such as protecting your country from invasion. There should be a formal declaration of war by the legal government. It has to be the last resort and all other alternatives must be exhausted. There must be a reasonable chance of success and great care must be

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

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.

According to the Just War theory, just war is separated into two domains. First is the motivation behind entering war, and second is the means used during warfare (Hu, 2). The first judgment signifies justice of war, or jus ad bellum that evaluates the terms of a just versus unjust war. The second signifies justice in war, or jus in bello, which essentially measures whether or not the ends justify the means. The relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello are independent of each other, meaning that even if the war passes the judgment of one area, it does not imply justification for the other

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)

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The law of war as Col. Parks states, "is an attempt by nations to establish certain minimum standards of conduct by parties to armed conflict that will ameliorate the suffering of the innocent. As with all law, it is highly dependent on good faith by all concerned; at its best, it will not prevent all suffering." Abiding by these sets of rules and laws leaves our nation vulnerable. We are vulnerable to any adversary willing to take advantage of our willingness to follow these laws. Our moral or ethical behavior is not rewarded on the battle field, nor is there any guaruntee that it will be reciprocated. Instances when we are at war with another nation that shares our views of these standards; the laws of war and rules of engagement can be beneficial and perhaps; lead to resolution of conflict. Any instance that results in the loss of American lives due to the unwillingness of another nation to acknowledge these standards, is unacceptable. Further more, any time the established rules of engagement constrain our military to the extent that it gives us a tactical disadvantage is a travesty. Any law or set of rules pertaining to war

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

The criteria is broken down into two sections: Ius Ad Bellum and Ius In Bello. Ius Ad Bellum lists the causes that would validate a war. One can go to war if they are acting defensively, with the right intention, are being proportional, have attempted every other option before attempting war, and have a chance of winning the war. Ius In Bello examines the conduct of the individuals during war to determine its justifications. Ius In Bello is broken down into two sections: proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality is used to argue that members in the war did not use more force than is necessary. Discrimination is used to prove that innocent people were not intentionally harmed during the war. Any violation in this two rules is enough proof to name a war unjustified. If the values of Ius Ad Bellum and Ius In Bello are met, then the war was

“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

One of the five key features of a state, as enumerated by Heywood (2007) includes territory—an ​area of ​land, or sometimes ​sea, that is ​considered as ​belonging to or ​connected with a ​particular ​country or ​person. According to Wiengand (2011), a territory is important because “without a territory, a homeland, a place to put down our roots. we would be lost, wandering like the tribes of Israel long ago.” Despite living in the 21st century, territorial disputes still remain to be one of the primary factors that lead to armed conflict. In the first chapter of the book, Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy, and Settlement, it was said that for last two centuries, one third of the disputes that concern

Imagine that someone picked a fight with another person out of anger and it only made matters worse. The fight was avoidable in the first place. Attempts at talking, making peace with the other person were possible, but instead, a fight occurred that harmed not only two people, but many others emotionally or physically. This is what happens in many wars and fights all around the world. Many of these wars are fought even though it could have been avoided in the first place. There are many situations where wars can do more harm than good for many different reasons. Not all wars can be avoided, therefore, Catholic Church uses the Just War Theory to indicate whether a war is necessary or not. This Just War theory has been used to determine the

Within the study of legal philosophy, few scholars have been able to understand the dangers arising from the complex relationship between ‘liberty’ and the ‘state’ to the same extent as Lord Acton. Though mainly unpublished prior to his death, Acton’s writings provoke thought surrounding power struggles and conflicting interests in societies. It has become clearer over time that inequality, whether institutionalised or not, ultimately provides the foundation of modern societies. In order to counteract this and facilitate stability amongst nations, particularly in the prevention of anarchy, many support the view that there is an inherent need to restrict the complete exercise of free will, be it powers possessed by a public authority, or at an individual level. The principle of self-determination in the context of the ‘state sovereignty’, that being the right of a nation to conduct itself in the absence of external influence, has assisted in alleviating some of the burdens placed upon the human race. The state routinely exercises sovereignty over its inhabitants and distinct territory to establish control, and in an ideal world should render a society free from oppression from both by the state, and amongst individuals. Though the struggle to obtain ‘liberty’ had underpinned the existence of modern nations, disagreement as to its nature and scope has created a variety of distinct perspectives regarding the limits which ought to be placed on our personal freedoms.

By nature the war is considered to be political, fundamentally interactive and most importantly something exceptionally violent. If any of these elements are absent, it might be constituted to something else instead of a war because it has got a certain nature to be called as a war and must meet a certain criteria. While on the other hand, the character of war is something that keeps on changing as per the manifestations and changing phenomena of the real world. The character of war is political that keeps on taking place among various societies. Politics plays a great role and character in shaping the society. While the conduct of war is highly affected by cultural, political, ethical, legal, technological as well as social factors along with the factors associated with the organization of military. However, the place and time keeps on playing great role in deciding the character of wars .