Just war theory
Just war theory is an ethical framework that delineates the conditions under which a nation may justifiably engage in war. Originating from the Catholic tradition, the theory has evolved from its religious roots to incorporate both theological and secular perspectives on warfare. Historically, figures such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas contributed significantly to its development, with Augustine providing a biblical rationale for war and Aquinas establishing criteria that distinguish just wars from unjust ones. Traditional just war theory is divided into two main components: jus ad bellum, which outlines the justifications for entering a war, and jus in bello, which governs conduct during warfare. There has also been a proposal for a third component, jus post bellum, focusing on actions taken after a conflict, including peace treaties and war reparations. The criteria for jus ad bellum include the legitimacy of authority, just cause, last resort, reasonable chance of success, and clear intent. Meanwhile, jus in bello emphasizes proportionality and humane treatment of all individuals involved in the conflict. Recent global conflicts, such as the Vietnam War and the war on terror, have reignited discussions about the relevance and application of just war theory in contemporary warfare, particularly in light of technological advancements like drone warfare.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Just war theory
Just war theory is a doctrine that identifies ethical criteria for one nation to declare war on another. With roots in the Catholic tradition, just war theory has shifted over the centuries from a primarily religious issue, to one of both theological and secular political concern. More recently, the relevance of the theory has been questioned in light of drastic changes in the nature of warfare itself.
Overview
In every culture, statesmen, theologians, and other thinkers have long sought to define, on political, religious, and moral grounds, what can make the horrors of war “just.” Until the Enlightenment, when reason came to the fore as a basis for philosophical debate, the issue was primarily a religious concern. One of the earliest recorded instances of the just war concept appears in the ancient Indian epic the Mahabharata. In the twelfth book of the poem, a prince seeking to regain his rightful throne struggles to reconcile his abhorrence of causing pain with the clear inevitability of battle. To address the prince’s concerns, his advisor presents guidelines for causing pain in the context of battle that restrict the use of certain weapons, and present protocols for dealing with wounded and captured enemies. The fifth-century Christian theologian Saint Augustine provided a biblical justification for war as a means of righting evil. Several hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas expanded on Augustine’s ideas, drawing up a set of criteria that would form the basis of traditional just war theory in the West.
Traditional just war theory is comprised of two sets of requirements—jus ad bellum, the right to go to war, and jus in bello, proper conduct while engaged in war (or simply, the law of war). Some modern theorists have proposed a third set of criteria, jus post bellum, to govern postwar conduct such as the drafting of peace treaties, the conducting of war crimes trials, and the distribution of war reparations. To meet the jus ad bellum, a war must be waged by a legitimate authority, there must be a just cause, war must be a last resort, there must be a reasonable hope for success, and there must be an announcement of intention. Jus in bello calls for proper intention, proportionality, and just conduct, which applies to the treatment of prisoners of war and noncombatants as well as the types of weaponry used.
The notion of just war experienced renewed debate in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The Vietnam War, the global war on terror, and the advent of unmanned drone warfare raised questions among philosophers and religious thinkers about the application of traditional ethics in modern battle.
Bibliography
Brown, Davis. “Judging the Judges: Evaluating Challenges to Proper Authority in Just War Theory.” Journal of Military Ethics, vol. 10, no. 3, 2011, pp. 133–47.
Davenport, John J. “Just War Theory, Humanitarian Intervention, and the Need for a Democratic Federation.” Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 39, no. 3, 2011, pp. 493–555.
"Ethics Explainer: Just War Theory." The Ethics Centre, 19 July 2016, ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-just-war/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Goldstein, Cora Sol. “Just War Theory and Democratization by Force.” Military Review, vol. 92, no. 5, 2012, pp. 2–8.
Johnson, James T. "Just War." Encyclopedia Britannica, 18 Mar. 2024, www.britannica.com/topic/just-war. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
"Just War." Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2024, www.carnegiecouncil.org/explore-engage/key-terms/just-war. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Neu, Michael. “Why There Is No Such Thing as Just War Pacifism and Why Just War Theorists and Pacifists Can Talk Nonetheless.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 37, no. 3, 2011, pp. 413–33.
Parsons, Graham. “The Incoherence of Walzer’s Just War Theory.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 38, no. 4, 2012, pp. 663–88.
Pattison, James. “When Is It Right to Fight? Just War Theory and the Individual-Centric Approach.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 16, no. 1, 2013, pp. 35–54.
Reichberg, Gregory M. “The Moral Equality of Combatants—A Doctrine in Classical Just War Theory? A Response to Graham Parsons.” Journal of Military Ethics, vol. 12, no. 2, 2013, pp. 181–94.
Waddington, Conway. “Reconciling Just War Theory and Water-Related Conflict.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 26, no. 2, 2012, pp. 197–212.