Just War Theory

Definition

Just War Theory is a philosophical framework that outlines the moral principles governing the justification for war and the ethical conduct during warfare. It emphasizes that war can only be justified under certain conditions, such as self-defense or protection of the innocent, and that even in war, combatants must adhere to ethical standards regarding the treatment of non-combatants and the proportionality of force used.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Just War Theory has its roots in ancient philosophy, with notable contributions from thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, who shaped its foundational concepts.
2. The theory is divided into two main parts: 'jus ad bellum' (the right to go to war) and 'jus in bello' (the right conduct in war), each with specific criteria.
3. Criteria for 'jus ad bellum' include just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality.
4. 'Jus in bello' includes principles like discrimination (distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants) and proportionality in the use of force.
5. Just War Theory remains influential today in international relations, military ethics, and discussions about the morality of modern conflicts.

Review Questions

• What are the main criteria outlined in Just War Theory that determine whether a war can be considered just?
  • Just War Theory outlines several key criteria for determining whether a war is just. These include just cause, which requires a legitimate reason for going to war, such as self-defense; legitimate authority, meaning only duly constituted authorities can declare war; right intention, focusing on achieving a good outcome; probability of success, ensuring that there is a reasonable chance of victory; last resort, indicating that all other options must be exhausted; and proportionality, which mandates that the anticipated benefits outweigh the expected harms.
• Discuss how Just War Theory distinguishes between 'jus ad bellum' and 'jus in bello' and their significance in evaluating wartime actions.
  • 'Jus ad bellum' refers to the conditions that justify going to war, focusing on aspects like the legitimacy of the cause and authority declaring the war. On the other hand, 'jus in bello' deals with the ethical conduct during warfare itself, emphasizing principles like proportionality and discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. Both components are crucial for a comprehensive evaluation of wartime actions; a war may be justified under 'jus ad bellum,' but still violate 'jus in bello' standards if conducted unethically.
• Evaluate how Just War Theory can be applied to modern conflicts, considering its relevance in today’s global landscape.
  • In applying Just War Theory to modern conflicts, it’s important to analyze how its principles hold up against contemporary issues such as asymmetric warfare and terrorism. While the framework provides a robust ethical lens through which to assess military actions, challenges arise when distinguishing combatants from non-combatants in irregular warfare. Additionally, the evolving nature of warfare and advancements in technology prompt a reevaluation of proportionality and civilian protection. Overall, while Just War Theory remains relevant, it requires adaptation to address complexities present in modern global conflicts.

Related terms

Pacifism: The belief that any form of violence or war is unjustifiable and that conflicts should be resolved through peaceful means.

Proportionality:

A principle in Just War Theory that states the harm inflicted by military action must be proportional to the good expected to result from it.

Civilian Protection: A key aspect of Just War Theory which emphasizes the need to protect non-combatants from the effects of armed conflict.