At first glance it seems unreasonable to distinguish between just and unjust wars because we may think that all war is unjust in itself. However, there are many thinkers such as Kant, Hegel, Walzer, Heller, Pufendorf, Kelsen, among others, who have tried to legitimize or delegitimize certain armed conflicts. Some thinkers tried to defend the justice of war by believing that when legitimate defense is at stake armed conflict can be considered as fair. Others condemned war as unjust when the only purpose behind it was to conquer or attack the enemy. For both cases, there is a right that we have to take into account, the right of all individuals to preserve their own life.
The principles of The Just War Tradition stress that a Just War must be the last resort, attempting all other possible strategies before using such force. Someone in high power is the only one who is allowed to wage a war; the source must be legitimate. A just war can only be fought with a reasonable chance of success. The reasoning behind a war must not be revenge, instead, the war must result in peace; the peace that would’ve been kept had the war never begun. The injuries inflicted in the war must fit the violence that was displayed; assuring that unnecessary force was not used.
In the individual level, theories about war focus on rationality. One theory argues that the war is used as means of leverage in international conflict. On the other hands, an opposite theory says that it is because of deviations from rationality. Ideology mentality of individuals determined to make the conflict either violence or not. Nationalism and ethnic abhorrence may push leaders to solve conflict violently.
War is Necessary When given this complex assignment on war being necessary, our group had conflicting opinions. Some group members believed that wars could be avoided by discussing the situations that brought the groups to that breaking point. They also felt that war is wrong because of the killing of innocent civilians and the destruction of civilizations. Others believed that war was a necessary part of civilizations. They believed that, was often very tragic it can in most instances produce many beneficial outcomes.
CAN A EVER BE JUST? Many argue whether a war could be justified or not. In my essay I will be discussing whether it's justifiable or not. A just war is war waged according to moral rules defined by St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.The conditions for a just war are 1. the war must only be started and controlled by the authority of the state or the ruler, 2. there must be a just- cause;those attacked are attacked because they deserve it, 3. the war must be fought to promote good or avoid evil. Peace and justice must be restored afterwards.
Competent Authority- Basically, was the war declared by component authority? The United States is a competent authority and has the right to declare war when they deem fit. They also gained the support of many other countries in the platform of “defeating terrorism.” Although many people will argue that many of these countries simply showed their support as a formality when many of them disagreed with invading, the fact remains the same; they showed their support and the United States has the authority to declare war. We may not have gone for the right reasons, but we do possess the competent authority to go to war. Right Intention-Was our motivation for going to war to effect justice?
“Examine what is meant by a Just War and Pacifism” A just war is a war, which religious believers may fight in under certain conditions. While life may be sacred, at times killing in war may be justified. Pacifism is the belief, which may or may not be religious that killing in war may not be justified. The Just War came from the Romans in the times of early Christians who were pacifists. However they needed to fight and therefore they decided to create rules in order to have a fair war which they were able to fight in such as having a legitimate authority to authorise the war and a justified cause which initiates the war.
Meikko Jay D. Forones POLS 411 – Solving the Puzzle of War _______________________________________________________________ In the first chapter of John Vasquez (1993) book entitled “The War Puzzle” he attempted to conceptualize war through accumulating major findings from the existing war literature ranging from Clausewitz to modern behavioralists and ethnologists. He is struck by the overreliance on "realist" or power- based explanations of war, and seeks to balance the equation by conceptualizing war as a learned group process consisting of various actions, reactions, and foreign policy missteps over key issues such as territoriality, taken in the context of international rules and institutions. Accordingly, the definition of war is a result of the language we use to describe it, which is a result of our previous knowledge. There are many definitions of war that Vasquez tried to analyze in order to come up with his conception of war. Amongst other existing definitions of war, he prefers Hedley Bull’s (1977) definition: “War is organized violence carried on by political unit against each other.” Although he has made it clear that even working and operational definitions make theoretical assumptions that may distort the world, he has avoided beginning this inquiry with an explicit theoretical definition.
Module 4 PE1 Based on a scenario and based on the laws of war, I could not obey the order this order, it would be illegal, with all the respect that my commander deserve I would advise him to reevaluate his decision on the order issued and ask him to make changes to it, because if we continue with it, we will create a conflict of an international character. If we continue with this order we would be violate the civil rights that we defend. To fulfill the purposes noted above, the laws of war place substantive limits on the lawful exercise of a belligerent’s power. Generally speaking, the laws require that belligerents refrain from employing violence that is not reasonably necessary for military purposes and that belligerents conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry. We are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat.
Many factors must be in play for military action to match the criteria of a just war. For a just war to be in place, the following must be included in the actions already executed: “1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3. there must be serious prospects of success; 4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309]. Very few wars in history have actually implemented all of the above aspects.