Introduction
The just theory of war has its roots in the ethics of war embraced by ancient Roman Empire and the catholic gurus of theology. Arguably the earliest proponents of the catholic faith, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas endeavored to explain why and how war was religiously justifiable. The two gurus of theology argued that a man could serve God and his nation at the same time through being a strong Christian and going to war, in defense of his country (Elshtain 78). According to St. Augustine war was a morally justifiable tool that God had given to the rulers to guard and control the subjects in their respective jurisdictions. According to Thomas Aquinas, war can be compared to an arrow given to a traditional as a sign of both power and strength that is to be used in the best interest of the people. This, in straightforward terms, is to say that war, just like power is given to an individual by god. During the days of the Roman Empire, a morally justified war was ordained and declared by the high priests. To this day, such religions as Islam still hold that jihad, a holy war is the most justifiable conflict and that engaging in such war is equal to serving god. This paper seeks to explain the doctrine of the just theory of war in light of its inherent criteria which constitute the arguments for just war. The paper will as well focus on the counterarguments after an elaboration of the merits.
The just theory of war holds that any armed confrontation ought to meet the criteria of either philosophy and religion or politics. In other words, any armed conflict has to have some form of moral backing. It is for this reason that the theory is based on the ethics of both war and religion. The theory is an ethical attempt to explain the moral standing in the suffering caused by war. It may sound absurd that human beings make attempts to justify suffering, but it is, as well, worth noting that, at times, war is a necessary evil (Walzer 112). Following the nature of human behavior, diplomacy does not work at all times. It is for this reason that armed and forceful ways become necessary. It is a valid argument that failing to go to war is a social evil and an ethical wrong. Here is why. The obligation to go to war is found at the core of the moral justification for war. In other words, failing t do that which is morally justifiable amounts to immorality. If at all the cause for going to war is morally justified, going to such a war is inevitable. For instance, if going to war is aimed at salvaging a country in from the hands of a brutal dictator, then failing to go to such war can be a serious evil.
Originally referred to as Bellum Iustum, the just theory of war is the basis for modern day laws of armed conflict. According to the early proponents of the theory of just war, defense is a necessity much like peace and other safety measures. The doctrine of the just war theory can be explained in three phases. The phases concern themselves with the conduct before the war, the behavior of the soldiers during the actual confrontation, as well as the ways of both the losers and the victors after the war. The criteria that justify war at all the stages take into consideration the requirements of the military personnel as well as the welfare of the civilians. Worth noting is the fact that war is the most justified thing when and if such a war is in the highest good of the civil public. Where the attacking army interferes with the well being of the general public, the war is said to be unjust and unethical (Elshtain 68). In simpler words, a war, much like any armed confrontation is fundamentally a struggle between the armed and legally authorized parties, and not at any points the civilians. The merits or arguments for just war can be explained by its considerations. The considerations are: just cause, comparative justice, right authorization, using war as a last resort and applying proportional force while taking care not to hurt the civilian population. Therefore, the argument for just war will be explained through an elaborate explanation of its considerations.
The considerations and arguments for just war
The jus ad bellum criterion concerns itself with the right to go to war. The criterion used under this principle is evaluated prior to the actual confrontation. The jus ad bellum is evaluated is such a way that the resolution to go to war appears justifiable and acceptable as the last resort. The first criterion under the jus ad bellum doctrine is just cause. This is to say that engaging in war must have a moral backing (Evans 112). The war must be acceptable to the society. Going to war merely to revenge is not at all a justified cause. This has been the basis for the critique of the Iraqi war. The decision by President George bush to launch attacks on Iraq. The war has been criticized as one that lacked a moral backing. The intentions of the American government have remained mysterious to many. Even so, the decision by the American government to declare war on Iraq has been justified as being in the interest of the civilians of Iraq. The American government gave a detailed report of the situation in Iraq prior to the war declaration. The fact that the war had the backing of the United Nations means that the war was in the highest interest of the global society. For this reason, the war was described as a just war.
Secondly, jus ad bellum addresses the issue of comparative justice. For such war to be described as just, the two parties to the conflict must have been unequally aggrieved by the situation before the war. If the subject of the conflict was such that one party’s interests were hurt by the decisions, actions or omissions of another, then the right to go to war exists (Elshtain 96). In normal circumstances, people go to war because they are not in agreement over an issue. The Palestine war over land is one of the most appropriate examples. The issue is that, the piece of earth, over which the seemingly endless conflict is based, was unfairly shared. For as long as one party feels dissatisfied with the style in which the issue is being handled, then the soldiers are morally obliged to go to war. This makes the war a conflict resolution tool. The fact that violence can be used to restore peace and understanding may not be valid in the philosophy of absolute truth. In absolute truth, no war is justifiable since all wars are executed in such a style that they lead to loss of life and property. Under absolute ethics also known as absolute truth, anything that is considered immoral remains immoral irrespective of the circumstances. For instance, the fact that killing is wrong, makes war an evil thing since, according to the proponents of absolute truth, the situation cannot justify a wrong. It is, therefore, worth noting that the just war theory is based on moral relativism and situational dynamism.
Third consideration under the jus ad bellum is the aspect of the competent authority. This consideration holds that all the powers to go to war should be given to an army by a recognized authority. This may mean that only the legally recognized authorities can declare war. For instance, an army commander cannot declare war on a region and lead his army in the attacks against the said region. The authority to declare war rests in the president and the legislative arm of the government. It is essential, therefore, to bear in mind that the president, as commander in chief of the general staff can affirm war and have his army at war (Walzer 121). This is to say that the wars waged by rebels are not just wars irrespective of the cause for which they go to war. Rebellious military uprisings, such as the current central African crisis at Congo republic, do not have a moral backing and, hence, do not constitute just war. This consideration is beneficial in the sense that it prevents illegitimate militia from waging war in an unjustified manner.
The forth consideration under jus ad bellum is the fact that the warring parties must have the right intention. An army should not go to war with malicious intent. The intention of the army should be a straightforwardly justifiable intent. A country that goes on a revenge mission is morally corrupted, and their decision to go to such revenge missions does not constitute just war (Orend 59). The Vietnamese and the Iraqi wars have been criticized as being unjust in the sense that the American government had malicious intent. Critics have argued that the Americans attacked the two countries with the intention of acquiring oil unfairly. Iraq, which is one of the biggest oil producers in the east, has been described as a victim of the American greed. Even so, such claims as the malicious intention of the Americans are treated as mere propaganda as they are not verifiable. Even so, if at all the claims hold any truth, the Iraqi war is unjust. The right intentions for going to war include breach of trust or treaty and self defense. Defense is a justified reason to fight in all jurisdictions. Additionally, defense can be used as a justification in a court of law for such criminal cases as fighting and violence, even at an individual level.
The fifth consideration for jus ad bellum is the last resort consideration. War, according to ethical thinking, should be considered as a last resort. That diplomacy may fail in some cases is a fact. In the event that diplomacy has failed, war becomes a viable option. In other words, war should come in as a way of trying to remedy the weaknesses of diplomacy (Evans 110). Before the war is declared a last resort, the party making the decision to declare war must have had sufficient reason to believe that diplomacy cannot work at all. Diplomacy is considered to have failed, when the opposing party is constantly turning down the offers of the other party, or when such opponent declines to hold discussions over the disputed subject matter.
The considerations under jus in Bello are concerned with the right conduct during the actual war. The first consideration under jus in Bello is distinction. According to the doctrine of just war, the soldiers at war should endeavor to distinguish between the soldiers and civilians. As mentioned earlier, war concerns the armies only and never the civil population. The population of civilians should instead, be protected by the armies at war. The fact that the attacking soldiers are concerned with military objectives only means that they should at no point use weapons of mass destruction since such weapons impact on the civilians, as well (Elshtain 111). The decision by the American air force to bomb the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the war an illegitimate one as the cities were full of innocent men, women and children who were caught unawares since no sufficient warning had been given. Just war, therefore, ensures that innocent people, especially women and children are protected and that their security is safeguarded.
The second consideration under jus in Bello is the issue of proportionality. The consideration concerns itself with the weaponry used. According to the principle of just war theory, the attacking party should ensure that they use force that is almost equal and proportionate. This may mean that they endeavor to know which weapons their enemy is using. In other words, soldiers should not use such things as atomic bombs if they clearly understand that their opponents do not possess such strong weapons. This eliminates the issue of unfair advantage at war. The third consideration is a military necessity. According to this consideration, the military personnel should not trespass and tamper with or destroy private property. They can only do so where this will enable them to pursue such military operations as reaching the enemy. This consideration protects the private property of individuals.
According to just war theory, the surrendering soldiers that get captured should be handled well. The fact that they have surrendered means that man-handling them amounts to use of unequal force. This is an abuse to the integrity of the captives (Walzer 126). Reports have it that Iraqi captives were tortured in the hands of the British army. This constitutes immorality and should be punished. The just war theory argues that the captives should be handled like any other human being. As such, such theory promotes respect for human life and integrity. Similarly, the just war theory provides that the soldiers should not use illegitimate ways in handling either the civilians or enemy soldiers. Such things as rape and other forms of sexual assault are strictly prohibited. This way the just war concept protects the victims of war against unfair treatment.
The counterarguments against just war
One of the counterarguments is that, that which is just and legitimate varies from community to another (Orend 41). For instance, a country can refuse to engage in talks over land when they are sufficiently aware that the land is legitimately theirs and that the other party wants to gain unfairly. In such a case, if the complaining party resorts to the use of arms, their cause will not be justified at all. This way, the assumption of just cause does not apply universally. However, this counterargument can be neutralized by the argument that, in defining that which constitutes a just cause, the parties use universal standards. For instance, such universally observed legal concepts as the bill of rights can be used in evaluating that which is morally justified.
The second counterargument is the fact that proportionality cannot be established since it may not be easy for an army to know that which their opponent is equipped with. The armies go to war without having verified the weapons and equipment their opponents are using. Such impossibilities make the just war theory a mere assumption that does not seem functional in the real world (Walzer 121). It seems much like an element of idealism since the main beliefs upon which it is based are ideal suggestions. This counterargument is almost true. This is to say that even though the considerations, which makeup the theory, are fair and just, they are rather impracticable in the real world. For instance, the use of force on civilians is a common incidence in the fields of war. It is, however, worth observing that, in the modern world, the considerations of the just war theory can be implemented due to the presence of such organizations as the united nations, which keep vigil on the civilians during the war. Additionally, the international criminal court is in place to handle cases of crimes against humanity. As such, all the soldiers that engage in such activities as rape and assault are prosecuted.
The third counterargument is that the intentions of the parties to conflict could be mixed. In other words, a party that endeavors to attack another could be having both good and wicked intentions. For instance, if a country’s armed forces, declares war on the government of the neighboring country with the aim of removing a dictator from power, and it happens that the country wants to impose a different leader of their choice, it would be morally wrong. This causes an ethical dilemma that cannot be solved easily since the wrongs and rights are equal. This counterargument can be countered by the argument that the intent of the parties are valid up to the time the war is over. This means that after removing the dictator, in the illustration above, the victors should let the country determine its own destiny in the post-war period.
The fourth counterargument is that, a war, whether just or unjustified is a violation of the doctrines of religion and such legal aspects as the right to life. All religions teach that killing is wrong and cannot be justified as a solution to conflicts. Further, the constitution protects an individual’s right to life. As such, the just war is a violation of both religious and social principles. In response to this counterargument, it is essential to observe that the same constitution that seeks to safeguard human life provides exemptions to the effect that a human being can be deprived of his right to life in the event of war (Elshtain 116). On the religious principles and ethics, they rely on absolute truth or absolute ethics. Such principles are aspects of idealism, a concept that cannot be applied to everyday life. On the contrary, the just war theory is founded on moral relativism and situational dynamics.
Conclusion
Works cited
Elshtain, Jean. Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books, 2008. Print
Evans, Mark. Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2005. Print.
Orend, Brian. The Morality of War. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press, 2006. Print.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 2006. Print.
