The Just War Theory - Term Paper Example

When discussion the justification or lack of it in a war, one should think about the just war theory, that deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification for a war can be one of two, either theoretical or historical. The former deals with ethically justifying a war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The latter one deals with historical rules or agreements that were used through time in many wars. This is also called the "just war tradition" (Moseley, 2009). The principles of the justice of war are mainly agreed upon, and they consist of the following: "having a just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used" (Moseley, 2009). One can clearly see that although these principles are commonly accepted, they are open for interpretation and extrapolation. They allow a certain amount of flexibility and do not provide a strict ethical framework, as the principles and the interpretations of them can be quite vague at times ("Catholic Just War", n.d). Possessing a just cause is the first principle and probably the most important one, and it is very intrinsic as it stems from the very definition of a just war. It is commonly held that initiating an act of aggression is an unjust thing, and gives the attacked party the right to defend itself and initiate a counter-strike. The latter will be declared as a just war, as it is merely a response to the aggression being performed by the first party. However, the very concept of aggression is quite open-ended, as it can refer to a violation against territory, an insult which represents aggression towards the national honor, a trade embargo, etc. be that as it may, if an act of aggression has been committed and recognized as such, the party to whom the act had been done has the just right to react to it as they choose, and this will be considered as just (Johnson, 1984). What this means is that self-defense against an act of aggression is basically the only sufficient reason for a just war. But this can also be expanded to cases in which the first party has not yet attacked but it is clear that this is his intention and that hell be doing so soon. This is referred to as a preemptive strike, and is relevant to some other principles for a just war. Another principle for a just war which is also very much connected to the situation of a preemptive strike is being a last resort. This addresses the situation in which other measures have been tried, attempts to avoid the aggression and the war have been done, but to no avail. No matter whats been done, it seems that the aggression and the military conflict can not be avoided, as the other side is determined to carry out its harmful plans. In these cases, it is assumed that anything that could be done to stop the aggression has been made and none of it worked. There were serious attempts to pacify the situation and the aggressor, but these were ignored. This actually leaves the war as the final and only solution to the problem (Ramsay, 2002). No one can reasonably claim that the war was unjustified in this case, because there was no other option to be taken. An excellent example can be seen as we look back at the history of the relatively young country of Israel. In 1967, it was abundantly clear to the Israelis that the Arab states surrounding it are going to attack them. All the signs were there, intelligence showed that this is their intention, and there was no doubt about it. The Egyptian forces were deployed in the Sinai Peninsula and ready for war. But the Israelis were prepared, and in the period of anxious waiting for the first strike to be delivered, they concocted a brilliant plan to surprise their enemies by dealing the first blow and turning the tide on their enemies, having the benefit of surprise. What this means is that Israel was really the first to strike, but it is clear that it was a preemptive strike that was used as a last resort. It was undeniable that the Arabs were going to attack very soon and that nothing will make them change their minds. This preemptive strike, even though it predated the first Arab attack, was incredibly successful and led to fantastic results in the war that undoubtedly saved many lives. Possessing the right intention is another principle relevant to the subject. The nation should be fighting the war out of a just cause, rather than out of reasons of self-interest and aggrandizement. The underlying goal should be a good one, not one that will intentionally harm others, take lives or influence the sovereignty of another nation. According the Kant, possessing a good intent constitutes the only the only condition for moral activity, without regarding the consequences that are envisioned or caused and although self-interest could exist. This is quite problematic as the differentiation between self-interest and just cause cannot always be made so easily. If a nation wants to help an oppressed minority in a neighboring country, for example, this can seem to some as an expansionist move that is intended to help take over the territory in question (Moseley, 2009). The issue of public authority and public declaration has to do with the fact that a country may go to war only if the decision has been made by the proper authorities and according to the proper process and procedure, as it is made public to the citizens and to the enemy country (or countries). The importance of this principle is that the war isnt declared by a ruler that is extreme or militaristic and against the interests of the country or the opinion of the other members of the government. Even the person leading the country cannot single-handedly decide to attack a country out of his own desires; this must be discussed first and approved by the relevant factors. The involvement and knowledge of the UN (not to mention their support in the act) is also important to this regard. It means that theres an international acceptance of the act. Having a reasonable chance of success is also a principle of a just war. If there is not foreseeable chance of success, then by starting a war the person or persons deciding to start the war will only inflict suffering, heavy losses and unnecessary tragedy on the citizens of the country. This means that people are sent to war in the full and conscious knowledge that they wont succeed and will probably be killed. It is basically sending people to their death without any justification for it. The last but certainly not least of the principles for a just war is the proportionality between the desired end and the means in which the war is fought. The logic standing behind this is the minimizing of the destruction that is inflicted by the war, to both sides. The aspiration of a war should be to end it quickly with as few casualties as possible, returning the area to a state of peace and balance. A country that was attacked should respond in a proportional way to how it was attacked, without using overwhelming or exuberant force if it isnt necessary or uncalled far (Orend, 2005; "Just War Theory", n.d). Also, a country that is about the attack another (out of a just cause) should consider the universal goods that will come out of the war, like securing the just cause, against the universal evils that will result, like casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to the costs of the war (are equal or greater from them), then the war should be fought (Luban, 1980). To conclude this matter, we can say that a just war has its principles which are inherent and obvious. However, their interpretation can vary a lot, as some of them are vague or subjective, leading to perhaps very different views on the justification of the war. Still, these integral things must take place in order for the war to be justified. The war has to be fought out of a good and just intention, only as a last resort, having a reasonable change of success and being proportional to the attack or aggression that predated it, and declared and notified to the proper parties. While there could be some disagreement in terms of how to interpret these, the main logic and pillars of this are well understood and accepted, and remain the principles of a just war today as it has for many years. References "Catholic Just War" (n.d). Catholic Peace Fellowship. Retrieved July 25, 2009 from http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2198 Johnson, J.T (1984). "Can Modern War Be Just?". Theology Today, April 1986. "Just War Theory" (n.d). Westminster College. Retrieved July 28, 2009 from http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/mmarkowski/312/justwar.htm Luban, D. (1980). "Just War and Human Rights". Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 9 (Issue 2), p. 160-181. Moseley, A. (2009). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Just War Theory". Retrieved July 27, 2009, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm#H2 Orend, B. (2005). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "War". Published February 4, 2000. Retrieved July 26, 2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2.1 Ramsay, P. (2002). "The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility". Read More