Some reject the very idea of the “morality of war”.

[1] Of those, some deny that morality applies at all once the guns strike
up; for others, no plausible moral theory could license the exceptional horrors of war. The first group are sometimes called
realists. The second group are pacifists. The task of just war theory is to seek a middle path between them: to justify at
least some wars, but also to limit them (Ramsey 1961). Although realism undoubtedly has its adherents, few philosophers
find it compelling.[2] The real challenge to just war theory comes from pacifism. And we should remember, from the
outset, that this challenge is real. The justified war might well be a chimera.

Just War Theory

Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. Just War theory postulates that war, while
terrible, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may
justify war. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically
justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition," deals with
the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages.

Purpose
The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only
applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is
morally right to take part in a particular war). Just War Theory provides a useful framework for individuals and political
groups to use for their discussions of possible wars. The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by
showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of
resolving conflicts.

Origins
The principles of a Just War originated with classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero. Although St.
Augustine provided comments on the morality of war from the Christian perspective (railing against the love of violence
that war can engender) as did several Arabic commentators in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries,
but the most systematic exposition in the Western tradition and one that still attracts attention was outlined by
Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. In the Summa Theologicae, Aquinas presents the general outline of what
becomes the traditional just war theory.

Elements
There are two parts to Just War theory, both with Latin names:
 Jus ad bellum: the conditions under which the use of military force is justified.
 Jus in bello: how to conduct a war in an ethical manner.
A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. Some wars fought for noble causes have
been rendered unjust because of the way in which they were fought. In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass,
Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice
after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, war crimes trials, and war reparations.

JUS AD BELLUM The conditions required for justly going to war; the right to go to war.

1. JUST AUTHORITY: The first condition in Just War Theory is Just Authority, also known as Competent
Authority. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of
justice. Dictatorships (i.e. Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military actions (i.e. the 1968 US bombing of
Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly,
we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine
justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of
justice.
 2. JUST CAUSE: This is the central condition for many discussions over the justification of a war. If a Just Cause
cannot be shown, many people will reject the call to war. Now, almost all nations and leaders who wage war
claim to do so on the basis of a Just Cause. Iraq, for instance, explicitly claimed to have a Just Cause in its 1990
invasion of Kuwait. It is not enough to simply claim to have a Just Cause. We must be able to show that some
wrong has been committed by one nation for which war is the proper redress by another. Unprovoked aggression,
such as an invasion, fits clearly within the criteria of a Just Cause. Few would deny a nation the right to defend
itself against unprovoked attack. The defense of an ally against an aggressor is also generally considered a clear
Just Cause.
3. JUST INTENTION: The Just Intention (or Right Intention) condition in Just War Theory sets a limit to the
extent of the war. Even given a Just Authority and a Just cause, it is possible for a warring state to go beyond the
bounds of its justification. In the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, the coalition forces led by the US stopped short of
invading and occupying Baghdad. In answer to the criticisms of this action, US military leaders pointed out that
the Just Cause and sole objective of the war was to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Having achieved that
objective, the limit of the justification for prosecution of the war had been reached and a ceasefire was negotiated.
Calls to occupy Iraq, assassinate Saddam Hussein, or use nuclear weapons clearly exceeded the authority of the
US and UN action. A just war is limited to the pursuit of the avowed just cause. A just war is limited to the
pursuit and securing of the Just Cause.
4. LAST RESORT: War is morally permissible only when no other means to achieving the Just Cause is possible.
This means that the nation considering war has exhausted all potential solutions, including political and
diplomatic. This condition seems to mitigate against the national pride that sometimes leads to war as the resort of
choice. A nation may have to compromise and negotiate to win solution short of war. But at least, the condition of
last resort requires that political and diplomatic approaches to a solution have been fully attempted.

JUS IN BELLO The conditions required for the just conduct of war; the right conduct in war. The criteria provide
standards of conduct for nations, armies, and individual soldiers at war. Some people have the idea that in war, anything
goes; "all's fair in love and war." But this is never the case in any war. Armies maintain some standards of lawful vs.
criminal behavior. Armies have police, prisons, and courts. It is true that some armies show no legal or moral restraint
when it comes to the treatment of the enemy (some are hostile to their own populations), but those are militaries that act
contrary to the Just War criteria and usually in violation the international rule of law. Such stares or individuals are often
held accountable by domestic or international law. There are, however, many cases where war crimes are not prosecuted
or redressed. Just War Theory is a philosophical idea and can be used as the basis of a legal process. We are using the
criteria to judge cases of war acts. Here are three of the key criteria for just (or justifiable) behavior in war:

1. PROPORTIONALITY. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. Combatants
must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive 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. 
2. DISCRIMINATION. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war
should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did
not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no legitimate military
targets, committing acts of terrorism and reprisal against civilians, and attacking neutral targets (e.g., the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor). Moreover, combatants are not permitted to attack enemy combatants who have
surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat or who
are parachuting from disabled aircraft (except airborne forces) or who are shipwrecked. 
 3. RESPONSIBILITY. A country is not responsible for unexpected side effects of its military activity as long as
the following three conditions are met:
(a) The action must carry the intention to produce good consequences.
(b) The bad effects were not intended.
(c) The good of the war must outweigh the damage done by it.

JUS POST BELLUM

Actions after a conflict can be warranted by actions observed during war, meaning that there can be justification to meet
violence with violence even after war. Brian Orend proposes the following principles:

1. Just cause for termination

A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place,
and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology,
compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that
any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.

2. Right intention

A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The
victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed
forces may have committed.

3. Public declaration and authority

The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.

4. Discrimination

The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures
are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Truth and reconciliation may sometimes be more important
than punishing war crimes.

5. Proportionality

Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist
crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not
permitted.

The Future of Just War Theory

Much recent work has used either traditionalist or revisionist just war theory to consider new developments in the practice
of warfare, especially the use of drones, and the possible development of autonomous weapons systems. Others have
focused on the ethics of non-state conflicts, and asymmetric wars. Very few contemporary wars fit the nation-state model
of the mid-twentieth century, and conflicts involving non-state actors raise interesting questions for legitimate authority
and the principle of Discrimination in particular (Parry 2016).