In this essay I will discuss the components of just war theory, namely jus ad bellum and jus in bello Concretely, this essay will concentrate on how the Kazakh-Junghar warfare was made unjust because of not proper use of the chosen elements. The first paragraph will discuss the concept of Just war thought, in particular its principles. The second paragraph will describe the war between Kazakhs and Junghars according to the historical facts. The third paragraph will show evidence that the war was unjust. Finally, the last paragraph will summarize the discussion that was made throughout the paper. The topic was chosen to address long – term questions concerning the Kazakh-Junghar war, one of the most brutal warfare in the history of Kazakhstan.
Just war principles are the basis features that define moral and legal conditions of the beginning any military interventions along with the ways how to combat the war. The Just war thought as realism and pacifism is philosophical and ethic reaction to the cruel practice of war. However, in comparison with pacifism just war theory does imply the use of force.
Some ideas concerning the principles of just war can be tracked in antiquity. So, Aristotle in "Policy" specified that war is fair if it is conducted for the sake of protection of the state (policy), and also for domination establishment over the undeveloped states, and concerning the barbarous states – only in case they showed the inability to self-government. According to Cicero, only such war is justified, edges is conducted for the purpose of reflection and punishment of an aggressor; thus for Cicero it was natural and fair that Romans ruled over the lowest people as by means of domination Romans brought them the benefit.
In modern...
... middle of paper ...
...as jus ad bellum and jus in bello help to analyze particular war whether it was just or unjust. Thus, the war between Kazakhs and Junghars was unjust as it misused the elements of such principles. Junghars failed to have proper authority, proper cause and proper intent – the elements of jus ad bellum. Additionally, they misused the elements of jus in bello, in particular proportionality and discrimination. This paper has discussed particular operation (“The years of Great tribulation”) in order to address the fact that war was unjust. The war has vanished an enormous number of native Kazakh people, stopped the development of the region. The main lesson for the history of humanity is that every state must follow the principles of just war in order to preserve human lives, in particular the civilian population, which is the most valuable wealth of each country.
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...
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
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.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
due to the differing perspectives; and who the ‘victor’ of the situations was. Finally, this paper
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just
It is interesting and even surprising that the two major strategies regarding war were developed by European contemporaries of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. Antoine Henri de Jomini (1779-1869) approached his philosophy of war in a structured, scientific manner. Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) took a more fluid, open-ended approach to his philosophy of war. The fact that they lived during the same time period in Europe is also fascinating in that they likely knew of each others’ writings as well as potentially influenced and were influenced by the philosophy of the other. Jomini’s scientific approach is more applicable to the tactical and operational levels of war while Clausewitz approaches war as more of an art or interaction between people that is more appropriate to the strategic and political levels of war. Although their two war strategies are presented as opposing strategies, by comparing concepts from each of the theorists to the other theorist’s work shows that they are actually more complementary than competing in that they are addressing different levels of war. The concepts to be evaluated are Clausewitz’s “Trinity of War”, “war as a continuation of politics”, and the “unpredictability of war” as well as Jomini’s definition of strategy and his “Fundamental Principle of War”.
In Khaled Hosseini’s novel titled “A Thousand Splendid Suns”, the concept of man’s inhumanity to man describes the ways that war has a ripple effect, such that any inhumanity carried out has consequences for many more people than are involved in that act. One can clearly see that war leads to destruction during different regimes in Afghanistan. The destructive effects of war can be seen in the death of so many people. It leads to the suffering of the younger generation and it demolishes the infrastructure of the country.
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.
In this essay I argue that despite transformational changes in the character of war the nature of war has remained unchanged and therefore Clausewitzian concept on relationship between “war” and “politics” remain a viable tool that contributes to our understanding of contemporary warfare. First, I will evaluate Clausewitz’ trinity concept, then present the arguments of...
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on December 1979, the goal was to help Afghan communist forces set up a communist government. The Soviet Union felt Afghanistan had key resources and a foothold in the Middle East to spread communist ideas. The result would be a war that the Soviet Union wishes it never got involved in and likened to their “Vietnam War”, meaning winning a number of battles but not the war like what happened to the U.S. in Vietnam. The background of the war, outcome of the war, and impact on the United States are key to understanding the Soviet-Afghan War.
The just war theory can be broken down into three components: jus ad bellum, jus en bello, and jus post bellum. Translated from Latin, these mean “justice before war, justice in war, and justice after war.” In this way, the Catholic Church is able to reconcile Jesus’s lofty teachings about loving your neighbor and causing no harm with protecting the innocent (Massaro 104).