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

  • 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 and the Battle of Helm’s Deep

    1274 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Catholics for Peace and Justice, “the just war tradition begins with a strong presumption against the use of force and then establishes the conditions when this presumption may be overridden for the sake of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights.” The Just War Theory states that there are seven conditions that must be met in order for a declared war to be a true and just war. The first of these values is Just Cause. This means that force can only be utilized to correct an aggression or evil. If the war is being declared out of spite or to seek revenge, the war cannot be defined as being just. Also, there must be a formal declaration of war and warning with spoken terms of what the aims are and what this war will plan to fulfill. The next criterion is Comparative Justice which means the injustice suffered by one party can NOT significantly outweigh the suffering from the other party. For example, if the initial attack o...

    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

  • 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

    To begin, the first part of just war theory states that the two types of just wars are morally permissible and morally obligatory. (McDonald, lecture.) The US’ actions against Japan were morally permissible as evidenced by Japan’s actions leading up to the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima. Although Japan was not yet at war with the US, they were aggravated by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reluctant choice to stop exporting oil into Japan, which was due to the US’ frustration of the Japanese’s occupation of Indochina. On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Hawaii, which brought US into World War II. Several years later as the war began to wane, the Allied forces met in Germany and created the Potsdam Declaration that clearly stated that if Japan did not surrender, “the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”. (“Potsdam Declaration,” web.) At this point in the war, the United States had two options, th...

    Read More

  • The State of Nature is a State of War

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...s to act on the basis of power and self-interest. This is false because states actually have the ability to freely choose between alternative courses of actions. War is not the only option. As Walzer says, rarely is a state credibly threatened with extinction, this means that states are free in a very clear sense, to choose to act on the basis of moral commitments and conceptions of justice as well as upon considerations of their own national interests. This can be seen in practice in democratic regimes where both national interests and moral commitments are based upon the moral beliefs of a nation’s people. Since war is an intentional human activity, states choose whether or not to take the dramatic step of embarking into war. Therefore, any intentional human activity is one that is subjected to moral scrutiny and humans are more complex than the realist picture.

    Read More

  • The Strength And Weakness Of The Just War Theory

    337 Words  | 1 Pages

    The “Just War Theory” has its strength and weakness. The strength is that it uses God with the evidence from the Bible for what it advocates. For

    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

  • Walzer's Theory Of Just War

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    Walzer understands that his ideas are theoretical and probably idealistic in some ways but he also understands that to allow wars to be anything but just is to legalize and encourage aggressive and self serving wars of conquest. Walzer is interested in the development of the idea of what it is for a war to be just. He writes, “Some political theories die and go to heaven; some, I hope, die and go to hell. But some have a long life in this world, a history most often of service to the powers-that-be, but also, sometimes, an oppositionist history. The theory of just war began in the service of the powers” (Walzer 3). The rise of a modern state and the idea of state sovereignty have clouded and wrongly employed the idea of “just war” in using

    Read More

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

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just

    Read More

  • The necessity of moral suspension in times of war

    817 Words  | 2 Pages

    War is on some level a game. Usually there is two sides, making moves and taking turns. The only difference is, there are no rules in war. War is a game without rules, without mercy, without emotion. Although certain situations require human emotion and interaction, war is most productive when all emotion is removed and as humans we just perform. Emotionless, robotic, cold, ruthless, and morally indestructible; these are the traits of the ultimate war culture. War on any level is impossible without first burying personal principals and destroying the moral compass.

    Read More

  • Abolishing War Argument Analysis

    1152 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the Just War Doctrine stating, “The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”. This, I believe, goes along with the second article. Just war theorists combine a moral hatred towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. Just like the second article explains, war is necessary of we want to live worthy lives.

    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

  • International System Essay

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.

    Read More

More about The Just War Doctrine

Open Document