Christifism And Just War

The studies of Christian ethics reveal to us that there is some common ground in which pacifists and just-war advocates meet; both share an effort to not kill or injure. To pacifists this belief applies to all situations and conditions, there are no exceptions. The just war theorists, however, believe that this is a duty to first call upon but may be overridden given proper circumstances and conditions.

The just war theory believes that war and violence are justifiable under certain conditions - particularly when innocent lives and human rights are in danger of degradation. This is what just war advocates contest with pacifists. The principle is known as jus ad bellum. Jus ad bellum is the criterion that is to be conferred before engaging in war. Jus ad bellum is formed typically by the following codes (DRBG, 160):

1. Just Cause. The war must confront a definite and real danger, such as to protect innocent human life against an aggressor or to defend a just political order.

2. Right Intention. The participants have the right intention of establishing peace with justice, and not simply to destroy or punish the opponent.

3. Last Resort. The violent act is undertaken only after all peace means of resolving the conflict have been exhausted.

4. Proportionality. The inevitable harm of the war must be less than the good that is sought through the war.

5. Legitimate Authority. The war must be sanctioned and carried out by those responsible for the common good, typically a legitimate governmental authority. This forbids private feuds and vigilante justice.

6. Comparative Justice. There must be the recognition that no party has absolute justice on its side.

7. Reasonable Likelihood of Success. There is a reasonable likelihood that th...

... middle of paper ...

...war. The assumption of jus in bello (that is the limits of ‘acceptable war’) contradicts itself when we look at the use of weaponry used in WWII. War is liable to escalate to a point where war becomes mass destruction. The values of just war and use of violence have not lead to affectively resolving conflicts. Just war thinking has failed always failed in limiting war and also

These two aspects do not need to be concurrent; so this mean that anyone can judge whether war is just, and the only some resort to war. For this reason, an authority applies merely their right to declare war rather than judging whether war is just. Even if were to say that a judgment has been made to declare war, this judgment is inevitably subjective to the state or coalition. Just-war ideals of governments tie to its interests and pride of political beliefs are known as nation-states.