The Just War Doctrine

976 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essay on international law and justice

War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.

The just war doctrine was written to define a justification for wars. Ultimately, the legality of wars is laid out by the UN Charter. The just war doctrine divides the laws concerning war into two parts. The first is when war is permissible (jus ad bellum), and the second is how a war is fought (jus in bello). A just war is separated from the principle of an aggressive war; just wars are legal, while wars of aggression are illegal (Goldstein, p.263). Aggression refers to a state using force against another state’s territory or sovereignty. According to the just war theory, although a war of aggression is illegal, a war that is fought in response to aggression is legal. This concept is the only allowable use of military force as stated in the just war doctrine. The just war theory evolves around the concept of aggression. In order for a situation to constitute aggression, the threat or use of force must be clearly visible. Since response to aggression is the only allowable use of military force, it is not legal to attempt to change another states government or their ideals. The UN Charter makes a point that war is no...

... middle of paper ...

...is automatically created whether spoken by the state inhibiting the threat. If no action was taken because states chose to abide by the just war doctrine and disaster occurred, the effects would ultimately be extremely damaging.

The principles of just war are useful and practical for the world of today. However, as globalization increases and continues to hone in on states’ affairs, the principle may begin to lose efficiency. If states continue to do their best to abide by international and set a standard for other states, the possibility could result where all states will begin to do so—anything is theoretically possible. The proficiency of the just war doctrine has been has been proving beneficial in keeping states safe, and protecting states’ sovereignty. The just war theory is presently proving beneficial, though through globalization it could become damaging.

Show More
Related

  • Christian Teachings on the Just War

    945 Words  | 2 Pages

    2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if

    Read More

  • Where Men Win Glory, by Jon Krakauer

    1088 Words  | 3 Pages

    War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...

    Read More

  • Total War Vs Just War Theory

    378 Words  | 1 Pages

    The idea of Just War Theory was suggested by Ambrose (Perry, “Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective”), formulated by Augustine, and finally refined by Aquinas. Just War Theory was not made to justify a war (since everyone can say that even total destruction was just), but rather it brings war under control of justice, so that when all nations practice it, war would eventually cease

    Read More

  • Walter Wink Beyond Just War And Pacifism Summary

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    The problem is that these few criteria for a just war aren’t easy to apply. According to Wink the criteria themselves is not the problem “but the fact that they have been subordinated to the myth of redemptive violence” (Wink 290). Making the just war theory a way to try and justify wars that are unjustifiable. Leading him to believe we should instead change the just war criteria to violence-reduction criteria, since that is what we are all after in the long run. He believes this will be a good medium for both advocates of nonviolence and the just

    Read More

  • Just war theory

    1005 Words  | 3 Pages

    The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.

    Read More

  • The Correct Decision of Dropping the Bombs on Hiroshima

    1200 Words  | 3 Pages

    McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.

    Read More

  • Debunking Bin Laden's Just War Theory Claims

    1112 Words  | 3 Pages

    September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.

    Read More

  • Pre-Emptive Force According to Michael Walzer

    1563 Words  | 4 Pages

    Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory matter for many states. The issues of abiding by international law, understanding the meaning of ‘imminent threat’ and morality all come into question. The biggest of problems is that states misjudge threat. The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war. Referring to realist and liberal theorists in conjunction with previous examples where states have pursued ‘pre-emptive’ force to legitimize their actions, a conclusion as to whether pre-emptive war can be justified can be reached. Pre-emptive war can be justified supporting a states internal responsibility to protect. Yet, due to states having previously exploited this use of force, justification can appear to be exceedingly controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, pre-emptive war is either about ‘strategic or morals… one or the othe...

    Read More

  • Justice After War

    1198 Words  | 3 Pages

    “The just war tradition is typically evoked when discussing the decision to launch a war (justice of war) and when evaluating the conduct of forces during war (justice in war). But the tradition does not explicitly specify principles for assessing justice after war, nor does it discuss state obligations upon achieving military victory.”

    Read More

  • Principles Of Just War Theory

    1002 Words  | 3 Pages

    The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states

    Read More

  • The Just War Theory

    1283 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat and may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. The Just War theory involved women and children or the treatment of prisoners. The Just War had undergone a revival mainly in response to intervention of nuclear weaponry. The Just War Theory possessing good intention constitutes the condition of moral activity, regardless of the consequences envisioned or caused, and regardless, or despite any self interest in the action the agent may have. When just war is engaged, the military ...

    Read More

  • Preventive Vs. Preemptive War: An Analysis

    1338 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Just war theory is a doctrine that has been studied by all sorts of leaders, religions, and especially military leaders. Basically it is a doctrine that consists of all sorts of military ethics of war and broken down into two parts, Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Just ad bellum is consisted of 5 parts, the first part is legitimate authority and what that means is that the people who are making the decision of war are recognized officials and understand the strategies of war. The second reason is for a just cause, having the right reasons for going to war and understanding that violent aggression is not the plan. The third is that the last resort is going to war, and being able to understand that before a country starts a war that can be solved in less violent ways. The fourth option is prospect of success, yes winning the war is a success but how many lives can be lost and still count that as a success. The final option is the political proportionality and that is when the wrong of war is proportionally less then the wars cons. I believe that if all non violent options of Just ad bellum have been tried and were given a fair shot and the only viable option is to go to war then going to war is acceptable. But if all non violent option shave not been exhausted and war is nothing but a quick decision this can be considered wrong and

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis Of Thomas Nagel's War And Massacre

    1542 Words  | 4 Pages

    Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.

    Read More

  • Negative Effects Of War Essay

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    War has been around for centuries. From the time modern civilizations began, war has played an integral part in human history. It shaped the world into the modern world we live in. War has been said to be a great motivator, for example, the Great Wall of China was built to fend off the attackers from the north. However, the negative aspects of war far outweighs any positive effects it might have. The destruction of civilizations, cities and countries, mass killings of men, woman and children alike, the disastrous effect it has on economy and the after effects of war can last for centuries.

    Read More

More about The Just War Doctrine

Open Document