Principles Of Just War Theory

Ethics Essay
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
The jus ad bellum and just post bellum principles

of Just War theory provide support for the aforementioned intervention. The principle of jus ad bellum requires a just cause of war, like self-defense. In this scenario, the United States would be responding to attacks on its territory and citizens and thus would be acting in self-defense and using the moral motivation of defense rather than offense. Since the United States is a legitimate authority, in that it is an independent state with recognized sovereignty, this fulfills another pillar of jus ad bellum. A point of contingency is that ISIS is not a legitimate authority. However, this opposition is weakened because ISIS has been acting increasingly like a state with political and economic systems and a continued effort to gain and hold territory. It could also be argued that President Obama is using this intervention as a last resort against the threat of ISIS because he has already utilized many other courses of action in response to different attacks by the group and this satisfies another portion of jus ad bellum. The goals of the war to end the Syrian civil war and prevent the use of Syria as a training ground for terrorists also justify the means of sending ground troops. This plan also fulfills the jus post bellum components of Just War Theory. The purpose of the intervention is to achieve goals the destroying ISIS, reclaiming lost territory and installing new regime in Syria. The existence of these goals rather than the desire by the United States to have vengeance against ISIS complies with jus post bellum. The peace that could be created by the accomplishment of these goals is preferable to the current situation in the region, which further satisfies jus post bellum. The civil war in Syria continues to cause the death and displacement of many people and the end of this war is necessary and the gravity of this goal proportional to the scale of the intervention. Also, as ISIS has caused death and destruction in many countries in the Middle East and also in Europe the termination of their recruiting and actions is also a legitimate goal. Ultimately, this intervention satisfies the tenants of Just War theory, which provides a moral foundation for the acceptance of the plan.
The ethical frameworks are used to rationalize many different types of choices but are also applicable and helpful in decisions about war and military intervention.

Utilitarianism sums the benefits and harms of decisions in order to decide if options are morally acceptable. This framework supports the decision to intervene because the number of lives that could be saved through the intervention outweighs the possible number of lives that could be lost. The amount of benefit that could be accomplished by ending the civil war in Syria and preventing future attacks by ISIS would compensate for the harm that could be caused to the soldiers participating in the intervention and the hopefully limited number of civilian casualties. The intervention would cause the greatest benefit for the largest number of people in the long term rather than not responding to the threat. An opposition to this could be that pursuing another means of responding to the attack, like diplomacy or continued air strikes, could also reach the same benefits without the harms of going to war. However, the strategy of air strikes alone has been attempted and proved ineffective and as ISIS is not a sovereign state it is impossible to engage in true diplomacy with its leaders. The common good approach attempts to determine what course of action promotes the good of society as a whole. The aims of the intervention are to end a terrorist group and develop a new government in Syria and both of these aims would be beneficial to the entire global community. Terrorist groups threaten the safety and security of all of the countries in the world, which causes countries to spend more on defense and counter terrorism and also stress and anxiety for many civilians. Termination of a terrorist group promotes the common good of the global society as a whole. Promoting a free and democratic Syria also promotes the common good. Syrian citizens would then have the freedoms and self-representation to make positive

change in their country. Also, Syria could enter the global economy and global space of shared ideas and knowledge and could promote further good and growth for the rest of the world. A counterargument could be that the United States going to war to promote the common good could further encourage the already prevalent “free rider problem” by not encouraging Syria and other countries in the area to pay the price of improving their situation. However, the United States has sufficient good to gain from the intervention for itself to justify its use.
While ethical issues are rarely black and white, there is sufficient support from Just War theory and the ethical frameworks of utilitarianism and the common good approach to justify the proposed intervention. In this case, the tenants of Just War theory are satisfied, which provides support for the intervention. Additionally, the ends of the intervention justify the means and the cost that could be paid by the ground troops and other potential casualties would be worth the potential gain from victory for the common good.