Context And Definition Of Just War Theory

Just war as a concept of practice is mainly associated with ancient and medieval times. Its historical evidences of the tradition can be found in Christian, Egyptian, Chinese and Indian traditions. The idea of just war is commonly found in the contexts of history and politics. The theme behind this context is to present the justification and reason that why the war was fought and what was the driving factor behind it. The rationale given regarding the occurrence of warfare can be historic or theoretic. The theoretic dimension is mainly regarding giving the ethical justifications of war and the forms of warfare. However, the historical aspect, also known as the tradition of just war, considers the historical body of rules or accords which has been applied in many wars fought in ancient history to till date. The famous international conventions like Geneva and Hague are the two of the oldest rules made with the intention of limiting and refraining from wars. In the current times, there are people who do not find the concept functional for the current globalized and advanced world. The current problems like terrorism, boundary disputes, nuclear proliferation and security threats faced by world community pose a constant threat for war and violence and it also indicates that there is need to have some sort of ethics and principles even today. The current essay is an attempt to shed some light on the concept of just war, trace its historical origins and understand its significance in the current times.

Context and definition of just war

The tradition of just war is as old as the concept of war is. Its basic belief lies in recognizing the fact that killing people is primarily wrong but it is not always the worst thing. The doctrine of just war sets wide range of criteria that needs to be satisfied to make a war ethically justified (NA, 2016). Some of the wars fought in early history indicate that some sort of moral principles was taken into consideration by the warriors to put a constraint on the occurrence of war or to limit the potential damage caused by war. These rules and regulations involve the code of ethics relating to the treatment of women, children and the treatment of the captives and wounded of wars. Those traditions called for taking “honour” into consideration. Few practices in the wars have always been considered as dishonorable and unethical and there are some which are regarded as acceptable. What is “honourable” is mostly related to the culture such as, suicidal attack or defense was regarded as an act of honour for some people and displeasing to others (Salisbury, 2017). It is claimed by scholars that honour conventions are also varying from people to people and culture to culture.

In history, there has been several mutually agreed terms and conditions of war. These rules mainly developed in between the two culturally identical enemies. When a variety of ethics and principles are discussed among the two revelries, it is viewed that they completely and in clear manner agree upon those rules and will follow them in the warfare. There are also times, when these rival parties completely differ from each other because of having dissimilar religious opinions, backgrounds or languages. In such cases they view each other as “less than human” and war agreements are hardly taken into practice. This is the only time when the enemy is not seen as an individual having a moral identity with which one should maintain peace (Robinson, 2017). The body of rules and agreements are only applied when common grounds on some values are found between the warfare parties. The motivation behind the development of such rules is to provide mutual benefit. Apart from these rules being available in history, it has been a great concern for the just war theorist that the absence of guidelines to warfare or any non-symmetrical standards between the enemies should be ended and the rule of war should smear to all similarly. This means that the just war theory should be universally accepted in covering and capable in turn assessing the actions of all parties over above any historically formed agreements (Robinson, 2017).

Philosophical traditions of just war

The practice of Limiting wars has its oldest roots in pre-Christian cultures. Christian theologians and canonists are considered behind the early development of the doctrine. The later development of the concept was basically amalgamated with their original ideas (Burliga, 2018). There are three philosophers who are generally regarded as major contributors to the idea of just war who are, Augustine, Gratian and Thomas Aquinas. Augustine, in his writings of 400 A.D gave the concept of systematic moral justification for Christians participating into an act of violence. However, he was not the first thinker to discuss the idea, the very first example for the justification of Christian’s participation into violence can be traced back to the New Testament but Augustine is remembered for treating the issue in a more systematic manner in comparison to the people before him. Taking the concept of just war in a religious or spiritual world, he regarded it as a definitive and lasting way for future generations (Aquinas, 2017).

After few years, there was Gratian who contributed in the development of the Tradition. The core idea behind his contribution was to recover the essence of Augustine’s thought at the time when it was on the edge of being forgotten by the people. He also wanted to cultivate the idea in in such a way that that its relevance will become eternal for the Christian church. The contribution of Thomas Aquinas was lesser known in the time he actually presented the idea compared to the relevance it got after his death. All three of theorists have put emphasis on “What we might term as the original just war question”: Is it ever justifiable for a Christian to indulge in a war? The success of just war theory tended to divide Christians from middle ages in two categories, one who accepts to participate in violence and one who doesn’t (Brunstetter, 2018).

The historical evidence of just war tradition can also be found in Ancient Egypt, Confucian and Indian cultures respectively. Just war tradition took evolution even beyond the boundaries of Europe and its traces can be found many centuries before the arrival of Christianity and even the emanation of Greco-Roman belief. The Confucian viewpoint is also regarded as critical in contributing massive work to the context of warfare. The time of Zhou Dynasty is regarded for emphasizing on the concept especially during the warring States era (Raymond, 2016). War was justified on two grounds. First, being a last resort and secondly, it can be only initiated through the side of the righteous sovereign. Questioning the judgment of king regarding the need of armed act was not permitted to ask. The Successfulness of an armed movement was enough evidence that the movement has stood upstanding (Raymond, 2016).

Japan did not come up with a just war doctrine of its own. They took major inspiration from Chinese philosophy in the 5th and 7th centuries. This inspiration was brought mainly from Confucian views. The traces of just war tradition in Japanese history can be found in the Japanese campaign for taking the northeaster island Honshu. In India, there have been several references from ancient history which remind a person of just war tradition. Mahabharata, the Indian Hindu epic depicts strong transcribed thoughts of a “just war’ known as “dharma-buddha” which translates as righteous war. In the context of dharma buddha, one among the five Pandavas (ruling brothers) questions if the damage and pain caused from war can ever be justified. The questions resulted in a long discussion between the brothers and ended up in setting up criteria like proportionality. Some of these criteria include rules like chariots not being allowed to attack Calvary but can attack other chariots, not attacking people in suffering, treating fairly with prisoners and injured of the war (Roy, 2016). The Mahabharata war is headed by contexts like “just cause” which includes the last-minute attempt to restore harmony between enemies for avoiding the occurrence of war. There was also a discussion regarding “just conduct” suitable to the context of war.

Criteria for just war

There are mainly two criteria that enfold the whole concept of just war. These two criteria are known as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. These ideas relate to two important rights. 1) The right for participating into a war. 2) The right to conduct a war. jus ad bellum and jus in bello comprises of many principles of just war such as, in jus ad bellum there is a discussion of just cause, comparative justice, competent authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort and proportionality. Whereas In jus in bello refers to the conduct which combatants have to keep within the war (Marr, 2019). The first principle is of distinction which means the act of war should only be directed towards enemy combatants not towards those who have been caught in the circumstances of war and are innocent non-combatants. This principle prohibits the acts such as bombing ordinary citizens and residential areas which include no legitimate military targets.

Another important principle is the principle of proportionality according to which fighters must make sure that the damage caused to neutrals and their property is not extreme in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a legitimate military objective. This principle is meant to discern the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act. The last principle is of military inevitability which means an outbreak or act of violence ought to be made with an intention to benefit in the conquest of the opponent, it requires being a bout on the reasonable martial objective (Hensel, 2016). The loss which affected the non-combatants and their property should be less and repairable and not too much. This principle is related to restrain unnecessary damage and loss of life caused by a war. Fair treatment with the prisoners of war refers to the combatants who surrendered or got captured during the war. These captives are no longer considered as a threat, so it is regarded as wrong to mistreat or harm them (Hensel, 2016). Just war tradition also includes the “No means malum in se” principle which refers to curbing the evil practices in war such as, mass rape and usage of weapons like nuclear and biological weapons whose effects are beyond the control of man (Marr, 2019).

In recent times, theorists like Gary Bass, Louis lasiello and Brian Orend have come up with the third classification of just war, which is called jus post bellum. This third classification refers to the conduct after the war. There are several aspects such as treaties for peace, reconstruction, environmental remediation, trials of war crime and war reparations (Love, 2018). These criteria of just war principle needed to include because it is believed that there are some potential areas where violence can take place outside the formal battlefield. This principle controls the termination of justice of war and also the peace agreements. Jus post bellum is also relevant in in the prosecution of war criminals and publically labelled terrorists. This idea was mainly developed for deciding how to treat with prisoners who have been captured in between the war (Love, 2018.

Current significance of the idea of just war

The current global political order is considered as posing a constant threat of war and violence. The number of states having nuclear weapons and not adhering to nuclear non-proliferation and unprecedented deployment of private military companies (PMCs) is considered as a potential danger for the world community. The modern settings and issues faced by the world requires considering the just war traditions. However, in the times of Augustine and Aquinas, the world was a different place. The fathers of this tradition believed that war is a reality of the human condition. The current political order and relationships between states also portray this fact as the situation even today.

The principles and criteria put forward by the tradition of just war have a wide potential for relevancy in the modern world. There have been circumstances in current history which indicate the need to follow ethical principles of just war (Dolan, 2018). The first principle of relevance would be the principle of just cause. The principle calls for having a proper reason for going into a war such as for the protection of the innocent and to re-establish a just order. People over a period of time have interpreted just cause differently such as sustaining the honor of the ruler. The international community seems to have recognized the value of this principle but at many incidences like Rwanda in 1994 and Iraq war which launched in 2003 tells a different story altogether. The international community is blamed for not doing much in case of Rwanda (Álvarez, 2018). The justifications put forward for invasion in Iraq is also questioned by scholars and advocates of human rights. Putting away a Tyrant ruler like Saddam Hussain who mercilessly persecuted people of his own country was celebrated by everyone, but it raises certain questions as well. Saddam Hussain’s barbaric acts of mass killings were on peek in the 1980s and if an intervention for a just cause needed to take place, it had to be on that time itself. Another question which is rose is regarding the “right authority”. It is critical to think that who actually is entitled to decide on the question of war. In the cases of intervention by the powerful states, there step is being criticized by saying that there are actually no customary international law that legitimizes the international intervention for the fact that internal regimes of that country is disagreeable (Conte, 2017).

Conclusion

Concluding with, it is difficult to imagine a world without any possibility of war and violence. The security and violence issues faced by the world make a great scope for the need to have some sort of moral and ethical principles which needs to come into practice. There is a dire need to keep war under scrutiny and control. The classical traditional doctrine of just war thinking can still be considered as the most suitable and analytical tool to serve that purpose. Due to the changes which have occurred in the world, the world has become more globalized, technologically advanced and interdependent then it was ever before. Some of the people disagree that there would be any space to put in the application the old tradition of just war. It is required to think in a more clear and careful manner that how that old framework can be taken into practice for the modern world.