Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Just war theory paper
Just war theory
Strengths and weaknesses of just war theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Just war theory paper
War, the very word which instantly divides society. Are you for or against the war? Should the war be happening in the first place? Many questions and concerns arise from war. People’s patriotism and loyalty for one’s country is tested. Indeed, war has either brought people together or torn them apart. The Catholic Church is often in a tough spot when war happens in the world, mainly due to if the war is justified. The first and foremost goal of Christians is to maintain peace and harmony. When looking a building peace, Christians developed the just war theory. The just war theory can be properly examined by looking at the development of the theory and how it was applied to the War in Iraq. The development of the just war theory came out of the need to address the conflicting values in the real world . Modern day society is full of new moral conflicting values especially in …show more content…
The complexity of today’s age is so hard to properly understand that the just war theory was created in Christian values to determine whether war is truly the right course of action. However, as examined in the 2003 War in Iraq, the just war theory can misused by any country if they want a war. The United States mislead the public in many ways about why the Iraq War was just. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had no connection to Al Qaeda. There was plenty of other criteria violated such as the criteria of last resort and proportionality. While the United States government is at fault for the misuse of the just war theory, it makes one wonder as to how the theory can be manipulated in such a way. Perhaps, the just war theory needs more revision to fit in with the ever growing complications of the modern world. In any case, the United States still stretch the just-war theory far too much to consider the War in Iraq
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
To begin, the first part of just war theory states that the two types of just wars are morally permissible and morally obligatory. (McDonald, lecture.) The US’ actions against Japan were morally permissible as evidenced by Japan’s actions leading up to the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima. Although Japan was not yet at war with the US, they were aggravated by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reluctant choice to stop exporting oil into Japan, which was due to the US’ frustration of the Japanese’s occupation of Indochina. On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Hawaii, which brought US into World War II. Several years later as the war began to wane, the Allied forces met in Germany and created the Potsdam Declaration that clearly stated that if Japan did not surrender, “the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”. (“Potsdam Declaration,” web.) At this point in the war, the United States had two options, th...
Just War Theory has three components jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Each of the components can explain what makes a war just and moral. Jus ad bellum or just initiation of war is achieved if a state has a just cause, uses armed conflict after all other means are exhausted, if it has a right intention to go into war, if there is a chance of success, and if it the ends of the war are equal to the means of war. The
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
The idea of Just War Theory was suggested by Ambrose (Perry, “Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective”), formulated by Augustine, and finally refined by Aquinas. Just War Theory was not made to justify a war (since everyone can say that even total destruction was just), but rather it brings war under control of justice, so that when all nations practice it, war would eventually cease
“No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War.” (Richard M. Nixon, 1985) Despite almost half a century of retrospect, numerous studies, and the declassification of military documents, former President Nixon’s assertion still holds truth. Of all the wars that the United States has fought in, the Vietnam War has compelled the most Americans to question what we were fighting for and why. Was the Vietnam War a just war?
The word “War” sends shivers through many people because of the effect war has on individual groups or people, minorities, soldiers and the society.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
Even though many credit St. Augustine with founding the just war theory, this view is partially misleading. Augustine synthesized ideas from classical Greco-Roman and Christian philosophy to construct his theory, so credit can also be given to philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero. Since then, it has been modified by many notable thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, and Francisco Suarez (Orend). Technicalities aside, Augustine was a pivotal figure in developing our contemporary understanding of this tradition (Massaro 70).
“The just war tradition is typically evoked when discussing the decision to launch a war (justice of war) and when evaluating the conduct of forces during war (justice in war). But the tradition does not explicitly specify principles for assessing justice after war, nor does it discuss state obligations upon achieving military victory.”
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
Morality is hard to define, and nearly impossible to agree upon; however, when it comes to war, there is a single “widely accepted moral theory” that reaches beyond borders . Just war theory, a doctrine originally attributed to the Christian theologian Saint Augustine , postulates that certain circumstances can lead to the justification of war, particularly if war is used to prevent even greater atrocities from occurring in the future. In its fundamental charter, the United Nations even articulates that every state has the right to go to war in its charter. In its broadest definition, just war theory declares that war may be justifiable if the states involved have both jus ad bellum, or just cause, and jus in bello, or just conduct in war;
War is nothing to joke about, but it is also something that should not be discussed and it is better off not having the chance to occur. Do you ever wonder what the consequences of a war can be? Though often times the results of war are negative, there can be some positive benefits as well. It is easy to see that there are two sides to everything and World War One is no exception. America is getting involved for different reasons and this will impact our country in many ways.
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging
War and violence is a huge issue in the world today and is the cause of a lot of the problems and issues that have happened whether it was 1000 years ago or in the 21st century. There have been many pointless wars and acts of violence that have killed thousands of people over religion. For example, the Crusades, created by the Latin Roman Catholic Church, was a series of military expeditions intended to take control of the Holy Land from Muslim control. They were often pointlessly violent, sometimes even involving Christians fighting Christians. The main purpose of these battles was to access the shrines that were affiliated with Jesus’ life in hope to find the one containing the tomb of Christ. The Crusaders overpowered many cities on the Mediterranean coast, building castles across the Holy Land to protect their new territories. There were more than four Crusades, each containing the people participating in different acts of war for the Holy Land. The Crusades are considered a ‘religious war’ and are a prime example of how war causes religion to divide because the Christians were fighting to take control of the Holy Land from the M...