American Military Conflicts: The Theory of Just War - Essay Example

USA AND THE THEORY OF JUST WAR The ultimate and most dreadful corporeal anguish and bereavement can be the consequence of war. All sorts of war are an effort by one power to shield itself against another or to strive to obtain something, which may be as fundamental as liberty or independence, from another group. The majority of populace would most likely say that war is incorrect and most spiritual and religious people are mainly the torch bearers of peace and tranquillity. They believe that combating and killing are immoral but they may perhaps have the same opinion that in some situations war is unavoidable, predominantly in terms of self-preservation or self defence. Just-war theory or Bellum Justum encompasses the rationalization of how and why wars are scuffled. The validation can either be conjectural or historical. The theoretical facet is concerned with fairly and morally justifying war and modes of warfare. The historical feature, or the "just war ritual" deals with the chronological body of regulations or accords applied (or in any case existing) in a variety of wars across the aeons. Under the theory of Just war, Jus ad bellum is (Latin word for "Justice to War) are a array of criteria that are referred to prior engaging in war, so as to decide whether entering into war is correct or not. Jus ad bellum is from time to time measured as a part of war laws, though the phrase "laws of war" can also be chalked out to refer to jus in bello, which relate to whether a war is fought justly (regardless of whether the initiation of hostilities was just). For instance, accords like The Hague and Geneva conventions are historical rules and regulations designed to limit certain forms of warfare. It is the responsibility of moral code to observe and examine these agreements for their truth-seeking lucidity as well as to examine into whether characteristic of the conventions have to be changed or not. The theory of just war has a long historical milieu. The just war concept (bellum justum) dates to St. Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century. Despite the fact that some sections of the Bible insinuate at ethical deeds in war and concepts of just reason, the most methodical description is specified by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa Theologicae Aquinas provides the general sketch of what turns out to be the just war theory. Aquinas's belief became the model for later Scholastics and Jurists. These include Francisco de Vitoria (1486-1546), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767). Thomas Aquinas (c.1225-74) and then Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546) developed certain ideas regarding the Just War and they are widely accepted and used by Christians today. According to them, "The conditions of a Just War are that it must be fought by a legal recognised authority e.g. a government, the cause of the war must be just, the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil, there must be a reasonable chance of success, the war must be the last resort (after all diplomatic negotiations etc. have been tried and have failed), only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved." These guidelines were chalked out to thwart war occurrence and to limit its outcomes. A Just War is like chalk and cheese when compared to a Holy War. A Holy War is primarily aimed to defend the religion and the holy sites. Just War in the 20th Century: USA stands prominent in the frame It is very atypical to locate the terms jus ad bellum and jus in bello applied before 1930. In the 20th century, the concepts emerged and undergone a resurgence chiefly in reply to the invention of nuclear armaments and American involvement in the Vietnam war followed by Gulf War and now Afghanistan. Going back to end of World War II, where the war tactics were fully reversed by USA, resulting in destructive effects on the Japanese cities by 1945, which is not hidden by anyone. Initially the concept of Just war was there however, just to crush the Japanese and German's victories, USA as a member of allied forces bombarded the cities of Japan where massive killing took place due to the fact that Japanese cities were constructed largely of wood and paper which burned into ashes in nick of time when compared to European stone and brick. The desolation and civilian death tolls were to exceed even the dreadful annihilation in Germany. In March 1945, a solitary raid on Tokyo exterminated almost 100,000 people and burned 16 square miles. The conflagration was so powerful that the city's canals were brought to a boil. Over the period of subsequent four months, Japan's five biggest cities had been shattered at a cost to civilians of 260,000 killed and approximately 9 and 13 mn were homeless. In milieu of such massive human loss and destruction of cities, the judgment to use atomic weaponry against Japan was not actually a change of scheme or a considerably bigger contravention of the war convention. Who can overlook to point out towards the use of Atom Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasakhi, which brought the end to World War II, where USA clearly shattered the concept of Just War, killing millions in two attacks Yet, the use of the Atomic Bomb was striking and it portrayed such a great potential for devastation that it brought many of the formerly ignored ethical questions to the forefront. The nuclear warhead was not meant to hit Japan, but as a deterrent to defeat Germany. Several top American military personnel and politicians raised profound ethical questions about using the Atom Bomb. Hence, the Atomic bombing on Japan has left this avowal on the people over continents that this Strategic bombing was basically was a decision to kill people not due to their military function, but for the reason that of their nationality. The debate over this legitimacy of the atomic bombings on Japan was not yet over, and then comes Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan where again the concept of Just war rose all the way. It a thought provoking thing that why USA has been responsible for war in Iraq The invasion of Iraq by USA was initially quite justifiable where some support from the UN was also seen. However, the later part of the story again seems ripping off all the conventions and concept of Just war. Not only has the U.S. boycott reserved food and medicine from getting into Iraq, the trade sanctions prohibited common Iraqis from making any sort of life for themselves or even providing healthy food to their children. Though the U.S. government have been negating this, the international community and human rights commission as pointed out towards the fact that the US intentionally bombarded sewage treatment plants in Iraq to toxin the water supply with poisonous bacteria. Reliable estimates imply that more than a million people half of them children, have died due to dysentery and other avoidable infections and diseases, furthermore, starvation and malnutrition were the other factors that took lives of innocent children. This situation is still there in Iraq. With the dawn of the 21st century and the 9/11 incident has led the researchers to turn their concentration again to the just war theory with reference to US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Looking at the Afghan conflict, USA has never been concerned about supremacy that can be challenged in Afghanistan. However, today the only issue for the US is Al Qaeda. Here the question again arises what is the status of Al Qaeda in the criteria of war under Geneva Convention. The legal standing of al-Qaeda group is less clear. There is no authorized description of terrorist in international law and it can be argued that the Talibans are not armed force but volunteers. When the US personifies al- Qaeda collectively as "terrorists," or "unlawful warriors," who are "hiding in caves" and we will smoke them out in the mountains of Afghanistan, the statement is not coinciding with the article 5 (2), Geneva III. The Article which emphasizes that the Terrorists and mercenaries should be afforded full protection when taken prisoner "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. Again the issue of Just war emerges that is USA on the right path of the Al Qaeda, who in their own especial way has adopted the self defence policy. This pithy application of modern just war theory to the Afghan conflict proposes that its worth as a diagnostic moral or legal structure is inadequate. Furthermore, the struggle in getting unswerving information makes some judgments impossible. Political partialities create further complexities. Keeping in view all the tree events where USA played a major role may be negative in the eyes of many or positive, the Just war theory do imply the humanitarian laws where justification of the moral tactics play a vital role in determining the nature of the warfare. REFERNCES: A Just War Hardly By Noam Chomsky, Khaleej Times, May 9, 2006 Michael Walzer Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th ed., (New York: Basic Books, 1977) Irfan Khawaja, Review of Larry May, War Crimes and Just War, in Democratiya 10, an extended critique of just war theory Read More