Just War Theory

War is said to occur when one state declares hostility against another by which it places the people and resources under its authority to enmity against their adversaries as well as their resources (Gardam J, 1993). According to broadminded ed war historian and theorist Jeffrey Rodgers Hummel, there is an implication of the above definition.In placing its people as well s resources to hostilities, each state is in reality declaring war on three phases; first and foremost as to the other state; second as to the people of the other state; and thirdly as to its own dissenting citizens, should they fail to act in accordance with the State’s demand for manpower and resources (Gardam J, 1993).Going by the above definition offered by Jeffrey R. Hummel, just war would comprise that the war should have a just beginning. That is, it must be declared in reaction to violent behavior; the response has to be reasonable and according to the level of aggression, it has to be begun by an appro priate authority in opposition to appropriate enemy; it has to be conducted in proper manner that is justly†¦that is no harming of innocent people knowingly or intentionally (Gardam J, 1993). The war must have a just originThe just war theory asserts that war should originate only if there is violation of rights and only in self-defense. These rights should be individualistic rights as opposed to those that lead to war, for instance breach of a country’s sovereignty on a realistic altitude. Nevertheless, a difficulty arises at once. The fundamentals necessary to judge the justness of the war’s origin for instance, time and relevant information are not often available at the point war is declared.In deciding the idea of German Catholic participating in war during the Nazi period, it was once remarked by a publisher that â€Å"A scientific judgement concerning causes and origins of the war is absolutely impossible today because the pre-requisites for such a judgeme nt are not available to us. This must wait until a later time when the documents of both sides are available† (Allen C, 1966). The war must be a reasonable response As per the theory, it is grimacing for a provoker to be shot whether he acted on purpose or accidentally.While exercising self-defense the level of force utilized has to be proportional to the force used by the aggressor, while the aim of the responsive force should be articulated on the tenets of protection or restitution. Thus, a war with a just origin should have first exhausted all lesser force employment that could have consummated the desired objectives. It becomes crucial to elucidate one idea that the war should be left with the people with, that the state has consigned their rights of defense with.The question is whether States’ declaration of war places all its citizens to take part in hostilities even though a small proportion of them have been aggressed. Secondly, does aggression directed towards those consigned with the right of defense bind all others under declaration of war? If so, the contract appears to be calculated to enhance the level of violence of any differences as opposed to providing protection or restitution. The war has to be declared by a proper authority and against a proper enemy.Under this theory, the proper authority to exercise a right of self-defense against an aggressor is an agent or individual upon whose rights have been violated. Thus, under this heading a state is interpreted to be a proper authority. Here the assumption is that the war is declared against a state that is proper enemy. Just war should have a just ending On the ordinary observation, a just war (precisely since, it is not a campaign) should finish with the reinstatement of the status quo ante. The model case is a war of hostility, which ends justly when the provoker has been conquered, his attack repulsed, the old boundaries reinstated.Conceivably this is not quite enough for a jus t ending: the wounded state might merit compensations from the aggressor state, so that the damage the aggressor's forces meted out (Gardam J, 1993). In considering the atomic bombing of Japan, Was the bombing just? Was it moral? The use of atomic bombs was not meant to be confined to military targets, as these are obviously weapons mass destruction and could not fail to terrorize the civilians. From point of view of justice, discarding the rule that excludes civilians from deliberate attack represented a grave injustice from which the world requires to recover.If the aim was to end the war this could have been achieved without dropping those bombs on civilians (Gardam J, 1993). Appearing in the Nation, an article by Richard Falk titled â€Å"Defining a just war† in issue of Oct 29, he asserted that the war in Afghanistan qualified to be the first just war since World War II (Roberts A, 1993-1994). Although in the issue Falk went on to warn that the justice of the cause could be â€Å"negated by the injustice of improper means and excessive ends†, he did not relinquish his original affirmation.This utterance came from one of the prominent and respected advocates of international peace and justice. How true was his assertion about just war in Afghanistan (Roberts A, 1993-1994)? Interpreting Falk’s position as saying US war could be just, as long as it adhered to the ideologies he articulated, his argument nevertheless was manifestly wrong. First, on the ground that the principles were broken as of the start of the war and secondly, on the dismissal of alternative action that could have solved the impasse through the United Nations.How could this war be justified if the bombings lead to starvation of many millions of Afghanistan’s due inability of aid agencies to deliver their services to the civilians prior to the felling of the first bomb? On the other hand, prior knowledge of humanitarian crisis that could be occasioned by bombing serves to negate it from being construed as just war. First, the war did not meet the criteria of discrimination (not to harm civilians). Secondly, on the proportionality of the force (force should not be greater than the provoking cause), the force employed was greater compared to that of the aggressor (Roberts A, 1993-1994).The war in Afghanistan largely did not meet the criterion of necessity that calls upon force not to be applied if there are other non-violent means available. Before the onset of the bombing, Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan had proposed that they were ready to try Osama bin Laden if America provided evidence connecting him to the attacks in the New York and Washington. Going by the words of this ambassador, it is clear that this war could have been avoided if US offered the evidence they were demanding in order to prosecute the culprit (Mintz A, 1993).In addition, the ambassador had indicated that under Islamic law legal proceedings could begin. Thus, infact tri al could begin pertaining to the raised allegations followed by evidence being provided in court. However, what happened is that Washington refused to offer evidence, declared its demands were not subject to negotiation and started bombardment of Afghanistan (Mintz A, 1993). Whether Taliban’s offer was serious or not, Washington never bothered to follow, conversely going to war faced with such conditions eliminates the criterion of necessity.Vietnam War first assumed the aspect of political dimension with many at last being pressed towards moral arguments. Of course, the war was seen to be completely irresponsible, and one that could not be won. Its costs, even if the Americans were egoistic, were above the normal. The war was fought unjustly since it involved a lot of brutality by the Americans, a factor that was seen by many as the one that led to the defeat. In a war for â€Å"hearts and minds† as opposed to land and resources, justice stands out to be the main aspe cts to victory.Vietnam War served to educate states that there was a need for state to fight justly and to crown it all, justice has become military necessity. Vietnam was the first war that saw the need for emphasizing the jus in belle principle. It enumerated that Wars unpopular at home should not be fought in addition to wars whereby the state is unwilling to commit its resources. As mentioned earlier Vietnam War was based on doubtful justice and the war was fought unjustly, as it irritated the civilian population. By losing the hearts and minds of the civilians led to the loosing of the whole war.Modern warfare requires that there be support from different civilian populations, expanding past the population facing instantaneous risk. Nevertheless, moral regard for civilians at risk is crucial in winning great support of the war. America has in the past-confused just wars as crusades, as if a war can be just only where the forces of good outweigh those of evil. However, as for Ge orge Bush (elder) he appeared to understand that war, is properly a war of armies, a combat between combatants, through which the citizens should be protected.In good faith, there was nothing of a just war in Iraq bombing in 1991. The civilians there were not protected, since there was destruction of electricity networks as well as water purification plants (Mintz A, 1993). Demolition of infrastructure, that is, significant for civilian existence was rampant during the Gulf War. Nevertheless, American approach in Gulf War was due to compromise among what justice would have necessitated. There was no controlled bombing and collectively as opposed to Korea or Vietnam, targeting was far more unlimited and selective.Conclusion Many people acknowledge that we are faced with moral duty to avoid the evils of war. However, this realization poses many difficult questions, when as responsible individuals we witness tormenting injustices for instance, ‘ethnic cleansing’ (Gardam J, 1993). With millions of lives being risked by war, one is bound to consider if war should ever be justified and if so, for what purpose? In answering the above, it is first important to consider principles of just war theory and finally correlate these principles to historical as well as ongoing conflicts.On the just cause, figures like Ronald Reagan are seen to assert that whether in self-defense or defense for others, remain the only classified cause that justifies waging war. There is a need to justify military intervention in secessionist or revolutionary wars. The conduct of war should also be in accordance with the principles of discrimination and proportionality. Civilians should not be directly targeted ad costs of military action should be proportionate to the expected advantages of ruining military targets. ReferenceAllen C. Isbell, (1966). War and Conscience Abilene, Texas: Biblical Research Press, p. 82. Gardam, Judith Gail. (1993) Proportionality and Force in Internati onal Law. American Journal of International Law, Volume 87, Issue 3, 391-413. Mintz, Alex. (1993). The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision Making. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Volume 37, Issue 4, 595-618. Roberts, Adam. (Winter, 1993-1994). The Laws of War in the 1990-91 Gulf Conflict. International Security, Volume 18, Issue 3 134-181. Just War Theory The theory of just war is a military ethics doctrine tracing its origin from catholic and Roman philosophy. The Catholic Church in the United States of America was very vocal in the 1960s in asserting the theory of just war especially in their pastoral letter that were released in 1963 known as ‘The challenge of peace: God’s promise and our response. ’ Moral theologians, international makers and ethicists on just war theory maintain that for any conflict to qualify as just it should meet religious, philosophical and political justice criteria.When our eyes are cast back in the history of America, it is true that US has been involved in various wars for example the First World War, the Second World War and Afghanistan war. In the light of the just war theory, was United States ethically right to enter into these wars? This is what this research will mainly focus on. It will analyze the reasons that made US to enter into these wars from ethics point of view using th e theory of just war as the parameter. The paper starts with a short introduction then the main points and at the end there is a conclusion which is basically the summary of the key points.At the very end of this paper is a list of the resources that are used in this research, properly formatted in accordance with MLA formatting style. According to the United States Catholic Bishops, for any military action to be applied to a conflict it must meet four conditions for it to be legitimate. First of all they say that for any military action to be taken, the damage caused by the aggressor must be enormous, specific, grave and lasting. Secondly, it should be used as the last option that is, when all other means at disposal proves to be ineffective or impractical.Thirdly, the prospects of success before entering the war must be high. The fourth and the last criterion is that there should be lesser evils and disorders than the much that the aggressor(s) caused (Evans 4) Generally there are two sets of criteria for determining whether war is just or not. The first addresses the right to enter in the war while the second one is about the conduct of the military in the war. The former holds that the reason for joining the war must be just but should not for used for revenging or repossessing things captured in other words the cause must be just.In comparative justice principle, injustices suffered by one party must exceed that of the other. Again, war cannot be waged by anybody thus can only be waged by a legitimate authority. It is also argued that there must be high chances of winning the war for fighting a losing battle is wastage of resources. Also war should be used as the last resort or when all other methods have failed. Finally the gains of entering the war must be equal to the loss and harms incurred or in short, macro-proportionality must apply.After the war begins, the just war theory holds that any military action should only target specific places and indiv iduals especially the enemies and their strongholds and the condition of proportionality must apply or put in another way, the amount of force to be used must be gauged by the amount of harm caused and that only a minimum force must be put to task for the goal is not to destroy and harm civilians but to correct the mistakes that were done by the aggressor(s) (Evans, 5)According to the just war theory the entry of United States in the First World War in 1917 could be said to have been just this was because the decision to join the war was made by a legitimate body and not by a single individual. The then president Woodrow Wilson asked the congress to convene twice to determine the way forward. It was in order for US to declare war on Germany as it kept on violating all the agreements that had been made for example it violated the agreement that it would suspend all unrestricted submarine warfare.Germany had also tried to entice Mexico to join the war against US on condition that Germ any would help it to liberate itself from the United States. The other reason was that Germany attacked all neutral ships that neared what was referred to as zones irrespective of what they carried. This affected US in that its passengers were killed and the trade network was interrupted. (Coffman 25) In accordance with just war theory, if the harm is long lasting and grievous then the war is just. The same was the case in the First World War where the US was losing its people and property due to German’s malicious activities.Again as per this theory the war was just because it was used as the last option. At first the US never wanted to join the war and was following the policy of isolation. It used diplomatic talks and signing of agreements to shun war but this proved to be futile and the only option that was left was war. This war was geared towards stopping what Germany was doing and correcting the mistakes that were done and was not meant as a revenge but when the war da mage assessment is done, the damage caused by this war was more than what the aggressor had caused thus as per this theory’s principle the war could be said to have been unjust.(Coffman 26) The US entry on the world war II could also be said to be just according to the just war theory because it was declared by a legitimate body in 1941 after Japan attacked US spheres of interest in Pearl Harbor. Though the war was declared by a recognized legitimate body according to this theory it could be regarded as unjust because it was more of revenge than order restoration. The US wanted to challenge Japan which had proved to be a bother in the Pacific region.The harm that Japan had caused as per the just war theory was not grievous, lasting or that big enough to have merited the consequences that resulted. Just war theory holds that the harm caused by the war should not exceed the damage done by the aggressor but in the case of Japan, the war caused enormous damage in fact about 100,0 00 people perished when the US dropped atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This is a clear indicator that US was not only targeting the combatants and their strategic positions but also targeted the civilians and thus in the light of the above the war was unjust.(Coffman 27) As per this theory the war could be said to have been just because the chances of US winning the Second World War were high although this was later proved to have been a miscalculation for it extended longer than expected and that was why the US was forced to resort to atomic bombs. This war could also be said to be unjust if it is judged the theory’s principle that argues that war should not be used as a means of achieving personal gains and in this case US used it as such.It wanted to protect its interests in the Western Europe nations because it had invested a lot in those countries in terms of loans and war materials and thus if they were to be defeated by Germany then this would have meant losing all that it had invested. (Gaido and Walters) The third war that will be analyzed using this theory is the US entry in the Afghanistan war in 2001. According to this theory, this war was justified in all ways. The war was declared by a legitimate institution that is the US government and was in response to terrorist activities of bombing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.This was the height of terrorism and that was why the US was forced to act. The war was thus meant to control terrorism but not to avenge. When the issues of damages that were caused by these attacks are assessed, they were enormous that the amount of harm that resulted from this war and for this reason the war was just. As per the theory, the war should be used as the last resort and this is what happened in Afghanistan. The US had tried to use all other methods that were at its disposal and they proved to be ineffective. Terrorism continued to be on the increase despite the measures that were taken against it.The US had tried to hold talks with terrorists asking them to stop their terrorism activities. They kept attacking US citizens and other areas of interest and at this time it was pushed beyond limit and had to act. (Gareau 16) As per the just war theory, there is no need to engage yourself in a losing battle but here the US was confident enough that it would win this war and indeed it won thus on the light of the above, the war could be said to have been just. In conclusion, the just war theory is a theory that is used to determine whether the war is just or not.It holds that the war is just if is declared by a legitimately recognized body, if the chances of winning are clear, if it is for correcting the harms done as opposed to revenge and if it is used as the last option when all other methods have failed. Using it to determine whether US was just to enter in the First World War, Second World War and the Afghanistan war, it is right to justify US entry in the first world war an d the Afghanistan war but using the same criteria its entry on the second war could not be justified. Works Cited:Evans, M. Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. Edinburgh University Press, 2005 Coffman E. M. The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in First World War. University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Gaido, D. and Walters, D. Socialist Workers Party/Workers Party Split. The Second World War: What the War is About. 2005 http://marxists. catbull. com/history//etol/document/fi/1938-1949/swp- wpsplit/swpwp01. htm Gareau, F. H. State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to The War on Terrorism. Zed Books, 2004