Just War Theory

A lot of opportunities exists for every person to attain a successful as well as a happy future. But some other many things exist that can obstruct people from exploiting these opportunities such as war. Essentially, it is impossible to justify war since not only does it remains to be unethical but also is entire damages human spirit (Zirakzadeh, 2015). Regrettably, several people do not even notice this completely, whereas some might only take it into consideration from time to time. The masses are uncertain about the impacts of war since they usually perceive that war is justifiable in certain situations. Regardless of the idea suggesting that solutions are not there for conflicts, non-violent resistance is definitely a reasonable strategy that needs to be reviewed since it is likely to change the world to be a better place (Lee, 2010). The just war theory has been tinkered with and reconstructed over the years but was ultimately set in stone by philosophers and theorists such as Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Hugo Grotius. Augustine had set the basis for the just war theory and they were Just Authority, Just Cause, Right Intention, and Last Resort (Lee, 2010). Although we do have these 4 guidelines still in place, we eventually added to the list ourselves to create 6 conditions to consider a war “just”. Following this, Augustine further broke down two aspects that require the war to be humane and moral; these two being, the right to go to war, Jus Ad Bellum, and the proper conduct in war, Jus In Bello (Lee, 2010). Therefore, this paper will discuss Just War Theory in detail, the current historical arguments and as well give my thoughts about it.

The first of the four principles to start the just war theory was “Just Authority”. When considering Just Authority during a time of war you have to be able to ask, “is the decision to go to war based on a legitimate political and legal process” (Fitzsimmons, 2015)? In other words, is going to war based on something worth fighting for and were proper guidelines followed before declaring war, or is this based on a bias or disliking for the other country. When following this aspect in the just war doctrine, the decision to proclaim war upon another country must also be declared by the proper legal authority.

Necessarily, the Just War Theory literally talks about how and what result into wars, as well as countries in which war is justified in certain cases. Just War Theory has three vital parts which include Jus Post Bellum, Jus Ad Bellum as well as Jus In Bello. They are applicable to two enemies with similar language, race or religion (Aloyo, 2015). At the moment whereby values are shared among these groups, they normally settle on the war limits and this is the point whereby just war applies. Nevertheless, in a situation whereby the two groups come from different cultures and do not share any cultural similarities or when there is a variance in terms of rank, the Just rules do not apply to this war (Aloyo, 2015). This theory exists so that enemies are enabled to have an understanding of the participants of the war as well as to get to know whatever will take place about relations to its consequences. Mostly when groups come to an agreement on some terms of the Just War Theory, it benefits them eventually since it enables them to keep away from moral and political issues which happened in the past.

The first part of the Just War Theory is Jus Ad Bellum where it incorporates six war criteria. The document made by Michael Lacewing contains every information regarding this the idea of the response to war declaration has to be proportional, for instance, the virtuous that can be acquired out of war must outdo the evil that is probable to occur (Farrell, 2013). In essence, the means must be justified by the end results. Moreover, in this instance, the country has to consider not only the cost as well as benefits but also the consequences that will impact all states that are part of the war. Like it has been attested several times, a safe answer to what may occur after the war ends is lacking (Farrell, 2013). Several consequences attributed to the war are likely to be experienced as another state might attack, the property might be conquered and a devastating decision might be arrived at, making changes to everything around. Those advocating for this theory as well believing that it is right and appropriate, they argue that a war’s end makes all things that occurred in the course of the war improve and look better. This argument is very bogus since several countries are totally destroyed left to recollect themselves as well as look for money to reconstruct and repair the damages caused unto them by other countries. Eventually, one country might attain what they wanted but the destruction caused by the war is totally unnecessary.

So that a war declaration can be considered just, the country has to possess the right intended for starting the war. In essence, it is definitely unjust to wage a war apparently for self-defense suppose one country’s intention is seizing the opponent’s abundant natural resources (Kirkwood, 2015). Since war is a momentous evil, war is considered just only in a circumstance that all other peaceful methods to resolve the conflict have been drained. Was has to be the war resolution method of last resort. Additionally, there should be a higher possibility that starting a war shall absolutely attain its objectives. It is wrong and inappropriate for wreaking massive destruction suppose victory was hard to achieve (Aloyo, 2015). In order for a war declaration to be considered as being just, the good being sought should be proportional to the anticipated damage scale that will occur. It would also not be just, for instance, waging a highly destructive war in order to conquer and reign a small territory.  Actually, only an appropriate authority has the capacity to declare war. For instance, it is due to this reason that the former United Nations’ Secretary-General Kofi Annan, asserted that the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal. According to international law, a conflict or a war should be authorized only by the United Nation so as to be legal as well as other threats are illegal (Allhoff, Evans, & Henschke, 2015).

The second part of the Just War Theory is Jus In Bellum. This agreement is regarding the way the enemy ought to be treated by its opponent. This part also incorporates six different criteria.  One of them is, weapons or methods which are evil to themselves are not allowed. For instance, ethnic cleansing as well as mass rape (Allhoff et al., 2015). This concept of the theory just like other concepts is absolutely delusional. Literally, Just War Theory fails to admit that weapons are evil in themselves though this is a truth that cannot be disputed. Weapons are designed to inflict harm on others both physically and mentally, that is; immediately the engineer starts to craft the instrument, it is intended for only demolition and evil (Allhoff et al., 2015). Actually, war has ended up being considered as a normal thing as the causal weapon utilized to wreak havoc is not considered as being immoral. 

Albeit weapons being an inhumane aspect of war, another lewd factor is sexual violence during war. The combatants have committed much rape for a long time as it is anticipated during the war. For instance, in the course of the Vietnam War, the South Korean together with American soldiers committed some assaults (Draper, 2016). Actually, a Vietnamese woman made a complaint through her post in a petition website claiming that a certain soldier rapes her and her mother. As a result, their lives change significantly as they had nothing to do but rather accept it. Several lives would not have been impacted suppose the war would not have occurred. This is a reason as to why the Just War Theory could not apply. Prevention of rape acts from occurring in a world that not everybody is absolutely informed of the consequences as well as the impacts is really not possible (Draper, 2016). Suppose women who have ever been raped still struggle up to date to get over it and as well seek intervention from the government for what they encountered than it is absolutely not reasonable believing that people would ever cease to commit such heartless criminal acts.

Such restrictions are imposed to help in minimizing the harms and damages that war causes and also to ensure that are applied just for good intentions as well as only against states that have committed acts that responsible for an attack such threatening innocent and unsuspecting people (Allhoff et al., 2015).  Several people have asserted that innocent civilians cannot be legitimately attacked despite the probable strategic benefits. Also, any weapon that is bad for themselves is not allowed. Weapons in this sector are naturally discriminative since they cause massive destruction and as well having other unexpected impacts and imparts harm in a manner that is cruel especially during war (Farrell, 2013). The use of chemical, nuclear and other biological weapons definitely meet these criteria. Therefore, weapons that are of mass destruction are naturally regarded as to be intrinsically evil.

A number of oppositions against this theory in the “revisionist” by McMahan Rodin amongst other is presently staring the just war society. The core value of this conflict the customary Just War Theory definitely lays upon the combatants’ moral impartiality (Fitzsimmons, 2015). Conservatives together with the international law, coarsely imply that every soldier on either part of the war is an authentic target and is eligible for equal moral protections. Those reviewing the theory respond that soldiers who fight for a cause that is not just are liable for causing an unjust threat as well as they are not eligible for moral protection. Denying this would be just as to insist that a police officer and a criminal on a foot chase are same eligible targets of violence (Lee, 2010). Even though the revisionists are eventually correct, a lot of their arguments tends to show how traditional perception has been unquestioned for long. Encompassing such law enforcement analogy into war, others are criticizing the de facto license for the soldiers that give the opportunity for inflicting deadly violence against each other.

According to law enforcement, we tend to think that it is a requirement for the police to give a warning to the offender or rather allow them to surrender instead of going after them with excessive force (Lee, 2010). The revisionists’ argument is that our moral responsibilities to each other cannot be altered substantially just through getting out leaders declaring war. Therefore, we require more reasons compared to what we normally think of just killing enemy soldiers. Another probable outcome of the argument by the revisionists is that the point of contingent pacifism appears to have risen in popularity. According to a contingent pacifist, he perceives that war is capable of being justifiable though probably never it is (Lee, 2010). As revisionist provide arguments regarding the new moral limitations on warfare, a number of philosophers have started to appreciate how very improbable it is such that any warfare can attain such high burden.

It is the international community’s accountability in preventing massive killings. Though, the international community is not capable of imposing a precise rule of law or a precise international view (Aloyo, 2015). The responsibility to the reconstruction of peace is critical in the logic that supposes lives are saved, they are lacking any motive in a warring country. The United Nations missions across the world are geared towards achieving these duties. Nonetheless, eventually, despite the international law regarding Just War Theory, humanity is set to give an ample description of the circumstances whereby power is breakable and foreign forces are able to get into a country to ensure the protection of the citizens (Aloyo, 2015). The Just War Theory, as well as the humanitarian crisis intervention, positively contribute to the humanitarian law, though is not attainable in the present warfare conditions.

In essence, a lot of damage occurs throughout the whole war process which is capable of taking long in fixing, however, they may not return to how they used to be before. With regards to this, it makes the Just War Theory be illogical and never being able to work or get applied to the real world we are living in currently. From the details listed within the theory, there is no detail that can ever justify war. Nonetheless, a vivid solution is present. I think the idea of nonviolence needs to be applied and be used often regardless of the conflict. Such kind of resistance can be utilized in achieving social change objectives through participation in civil disobedience as well as protests amongst others. Literally, citizens can participate in this, making it so influential as well as effective. Individuals like MLK, Gandhi, and Henry David Thoreau have all take part in non-violence resistance. Suppose non-violence was taken into consideration by the entire world, it would have entirely changed the attitude of war. Essentially, war is a malicious cycle that continues as people continue to rival at each other. The more people rely on violence as their top priority, the more damages will increase in this world.