Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
From Ciceros early ideas to Saint Augustines substantial contributions, the just war theory has been used as a means to morally justify the choice to go to war and maintain that the war is fought justly. Although the idea and rules of just war have evolved over time, the idea of just war has become redundant. There are several reasons as to why just war has become obsolete including ambiguity and personal interpretation of criteria and flaws in the foundation of the idea. However, the overarching reason is due to the vastly different nature of contemporary warfare to those of Ancient times.
The context for the creation of JW
Topic Sentence Around 50 BCE, Roman philosopher Cicero began some of the early ideas that later became the foundation for the just war theory. Cicero believed that peace should be at the centre of international relationships and that discussion is a much more becoming solution for contesting a decision than doing so by force (Harrer, 1918, p.27). Saint Augustine, thought of as the founder of Western just war theory, posited his ideas around 300 AD that the aim of a war should be securing peace and that a war should be declared by the proper authority and have a just cause (Lee, 2012, p.309). These ideas were created during a time when Rome was conquering lands to expand the empire and spread their way of life around the Mediterranean. They fought barbarians and they fought to gain and protect their land – maybe. Something about them being Christians then lead into the next sentence as the concept is a Christian ages concept. Collins (2008) argues that using the concept of just cause as a justification for war is erroneous as doing so could make almost any war seem acceptable if it was based on religious or moral grounds. Linking sentence about how it has changed over time
The context for modern times JW
The idea of just war has become redundant as (the nature of war has changed completely) the reasons for war and the types of wars have changed and something about something. The just war theory was created during a time where the type of warfare was vastly different to that occurring today. The changing nature of modern military warfare has made the concept of just war redundant. Miller (1964) argues that the doctrine of just war was created with a different type of warfare in mind i.e. weapons of mass destruction. T
The social climate in contemporary times has changed significantly overtime with a current shift towards humanitarianism not wanting to see a senseless loss of life due to greed and a focus on being aware of contemporary issues and getting involved/protesting/voicing opinions. Liberal societies such as those found in many western countries are becoming ambiguous about war with them ferociously supporting a war in one instance but then feeling unsure about it in others (Rengger, 2002, p.356). example Vietnam? Happy when they went unhappy after they heard about atrocities.. or middle east happy for retaliation after 911 but not what has happened since. Contemporary societies are now asking for justification when waging war and if it has to happen that it occurs in humane ways (Rengger, 2002, p.356). To help combat this, governments and military can portray the enemy as criminals or the other to change the group consciousness to believe there is a valid reason for going to war (Goldhagen, 2009, p.36). It is important not to confuse the idea of just war with international and humanitarian law. Although many ideas do correlate, just war is not law in most countries and is merely a moral standpoint for the justification of war. However, the just war theory does have sections and criteria needing to be met in order for the war to be considered just.
Justice of War (jus ad Bellum)
The first section of the just war theory is jus as bellum, which relates to the justice of war and the morality of waging war. This part includes six criteria that need to be achieved in order to declare a war as just. They are just cause, proportionate cause, right intention, right authority, reasonable prospect of success and last resort (Guthrie & Quinlan, 2007, p.12). The former three criteria are quite ambiguous and provide a chance for interpretation and judgement by the people who are looking to wage and want to morally justify a war (Guthrie & Quinlan, 2007, p.15). If they are able to find a suitable reason for each of the criteria the war may seem just however, it is possible and even likely that there were other motives that were not mentioned that may be to the contrary. precisely the will to do justice for oneself- as justice is seen through the eyes of the one party-that forms the basis for the existence of a doctrine of just war and at the same time ensures that wars will be fought and their causes justified. – The contemporary significance p.278. An example of a less ambiguous criteria is that of the United States of America, their just war idea is only of one that is fought in self-defence (including collective defence) against an armed attack (Miller, 1964, p.265). This assists greatly in determining a war as morally just as all other wars cannot be considered. However, even this can be misleading as the information one receives may be incorrect as was the case with the USA believing Saddam Hussein had a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (Jacoby, 2004, p.1).
Justice in War (jus in Bello)
The second part of the just war theory is jus in bello, that relates to the justice in war and has two criteria. The first criterion is discrimination, which ascertains that innocents or non-combatants should not be attacked during warfare (Guthrie & Quinlan, 2007, p.14). The second criterion is proportionality, which refers to the consideration of the loss of lives and wellbeing of innocents, own military personnel and occasionally the adversary due to incidental harm versus the likely military benefit of using certain force (Guthrie & Quinlan, 2007, p.14). Due to the changed nature of warfare since the creation of the idea of just law and proportionality, Miller (1964) posits that this way of justifying force is obsolete. In relation to both of the criteria, Miller (1964) shows that when one is convinced their enemys cause is unjust, they will struggle to show charity towards them which due to the nature of contemporary warfare, may make it difficult to achieve the criteria. Furthermore, due to the current circumstances of war, non-combatants even part of a morally just war are in more danger than in any other war before. This is due to the large number of military targets and the vast increase in firearms and weapons of both quantity and power further increasing the difficulty of achieving the criteria (Miller, 1964, p.281). Additionally, as the proportionality criterion only suggests that the lives and wellbeing of innocents and others be considered and weighed, military personnel could falsely state that they did when in fact they did not. The points discussed and the increase of insurgents makes achieving the criteria extremely difficult in many different wars. –
War examples
The nature of warfare in contemporary times makes it hard to distinguish non-combatants making the discrimination criterion almost impossible to achieve.
When the just war ideas were created, soldiers wore uniforms and were clearly identifiable. In both the Vietnam War &. And the war in the middle east&. Terrorism and guerrilla warfare make it very difficult to ensure that non-combatants arent attacked (Creveld, 2008, p.140) . Use stuff from last essay. Use a primary text.
The idea of just war may have always been redundant as the foundation of this theory is relatively flawed and many wars since its creation havent met the criteria. It could be suggested that this idea was created to establish a sense of morality about waging and fighting in war and make the entering of wars less more considered. Furthermore, one of its important features is that justice should be obtained however, the constituent of justice is not something that could be agreed upon by all and if it had been agreed to by the other party beforehand, there would be no dispute (Miller, 1964, p.278). When determining if a war is jus ad bellum, the people who are looking for justice can only see it from their own side and since it is the will to do justice for oneself, the causes will be justified (miller, 1964, p.278). Additionally, despite there being a well known idea a just war for thousands of years, there are still a large number war crimes and unjust incidences occurring during warfare. Campaigns are being waged with the intention of genocide and atrocious murder and/or humiliating acts against the enemy and non-combatants (Moseley, n.d.). Despite these atrocities being part of the just war criteria, they keep occurring furthering the obsoleteness of the idea of just war.
War needs more than a just cause; as with any deadly game a strict code of conduct and rules are required. its just another war ( Collins, 2008)
Conclusion
From its inception thousands of years ago, the idea of just war has been used to morally justify the waging and fighting of wars. The effectiveness of this theory prior to modern times is debated however; it is evident that the idea of just war has become redundant in modern times.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.