Just War Theory is a concept that originated from the philosophies of classical Greek and Roman thinkers such as Plato and Cicero. This theory later developed further by Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The premise of this theory aims to reconcile three basics: the seriousness of taking human life, the duty of a state to protect its citizens, and defending justice. It outlines conditions for determining when a war is just, and how it should be conducted. It is noteworthy that despite its extensive development by Christian theologians, the theory is universal, applicable by people of all faiths or none. In some circumstances, the theory suggests that war might be morally right.
Components of Just War Theory
Just War Theory consists of three primary elements: Jus Ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum. Jus Ad Bellum pertains to the justice of starting a war. Jus in Bello refers to the principles of conduct during war time. Lastly, Jus Post Bellum handles the justice of peace agreements and post-war period.
The Objective of Just War Theory
The purpose of the Just War Theory is to guide states on appropriate actions in potential conflict situations. It exclusively applies to states, although individuals can refer to the theory when deciding whether participating in certain wars is morally right. The theory doesn’t seek to justify wars; rather, it strives to prevent them, proposing that going to war is wrong except in certain exceptional circumstances. This encourages states to seek alternatives for resolving conflicts.
Criticisms against Just War Theory
Despite its grounding in moral theory, there are several arguments against the validity of Just War Theory. Some argue that war, being inherently unjust, has no place in any ethical framework. Instead of restricting violence, the theory is seen as encouraging it. Critics also suggest that the theory disrupts normal societal rules and morality, and is therefore unrealistic and irrelevant. The real decision to wage war, critics argue, is driven by realism and relative strength rather than ethics. They believe that following ethical theories of war only handicaps those whom terrorists attack.
The Need for a Different Approach
The ultimate objective of any war should be achieving victory as quickly and affordably as possible. Critics argue that if the cause is just, no restrictions should be placed on its achievement. Some even claim that conventional rules of warfare can serve as camouflage since ‘military necessity’ often overrides them. Given that terrorists have little interest in morality, critics argue that effective counter-terrorism may necessitate an entirely different approach.
