 Just war theory – suggesting that war can be justified only if it conforms to

moral principles
 It stands against realism or realpolitik, which interprets war primarily in terms
of the pursuit of power or self-interest, and pacifism, which denies that there
ever can be a moral justification for war and violence.
 Those who subscribe to the just war tradition base their thinking on two
assumptions:
o First, human nature is composed of an unchangeable mixture of good
and evil components.
o Second, the suffering that war leads to can be ameliorated by
subjecting warfare to moral constraints.
 Just war theorists therefore argue that the purpose of war must be to
reestablish peace and justice
 Humanitarian intervention has also been widely justified in terms of just war
theory. Humanitarian intervention is military intervention that is carried out in
pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. Humanitarian can be
viewed in two different perspective:
o Intention: Humanitarian’ if it is motivated primarily by the desire to
prevent harm to other people, accepting that there will always be
mixed motives for intervention
o Outcome: Humanitarian’ only if it results in a net improvement in
conditions and a reduction in human suffering
 Just war theory addresses two separate but related issues
o jus ad bellum- deals with the right to go to war. A just recourse to war,
reflected in principles that restrict the legitimate use of force
o jus in bello- deals with the right conduct of warfare. The just conduct of
war, reflected in principles that stipulate how wars should be fought.
 Nevertheless, it is unclear whether, for a war to be just, it must fulfil all the
conditions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, or just a substantial number:
o Principles of jus ad bellum (just recourse to war):
1. Last resort
2. Just cause
3. Legitimate authority
4. Right intention.a
5. Reasonable prospect of success
6. Proportionality
o Principles of jus in bello (just conduct in war):
1. Discrimination
2. Proportionality
3. Humanity
 There is also debate amongst just war theorists about the priority that should be
accorded the various conditions. For instance, some have argued that greatest
 emphasis should be placed on ensuring that war is waged for a just cause, while
others have suggested that it is more important that war is always a last resort. In
the same vein, some just war theorists have argued that the conditions for jus ad
bellum have greater moral purchase that the principles of jus in bello, on the
grounds that the ends justify the means.
 Although the requirements of a just war may appear to be straightforward, they
often raise difficult political, moral and philosophical problems when they are
applied in practice. For example, the principle that war should only be fought as a
last resort fails to take account of the possibility that, by delaying the use of force,
an enemy may become stronger, thereby leading to substantially greater
bloodshed when confrontation eventually occurs
 The ‘just cause’ principle is complicated by debate about whether it implies only
retaliation against a wrong that has already been committed, or whether it can be
extended to include the anticipated need for self-defence, as in the case of a pre-
emptive attack.
 A pre-emptive attack (sometimes called preventive war) is military action that is
designed to forestall or prevent likely future aggression. It is therefore a form of
selfdefence in anticipation; it involves ‘getting your retaliation in first.
 However, its drawbacks include the possibility that the calculations of future
actions or threats, on which preemptive attacks are based, may be flawed. In
addition, being based on anticipated rather than actual aggression, it may be
difficult to establish or maintain domestic or international support for such
attacks. Finally, it is almost certainly illegal under the UN Charter, which
authorizes war only in cases of individual or collective self-defence.
 A Jewish US political philosopher, Walzer has made major contributions to
thinking about the ethics of war. In Just and Unjust Wars ([1977] 2006), he
developed a just war theory based on the ‘legalist paradigm’, which draws
parallels between the rights and responsibilities of the individual and those of
political communities (understood as states). This implies that states may defend
themselves against aggression, possibly through pre-emptive attack (just wars),
but that aggression in pursuit of self-interest is ruled out (unjust wars). Walzer
also acknowledged that a ‘supreme emergency’ (stemming from an imminent
and overriding threat to a nation) may require that ‘the rules are set aside’, and
defended humanitarian intervention.
 however desirable they may be, the elements that make up a just war may set
states standards with which it is impossible to comply. Indeed, the idea of a just
war has, arguably, been made irrelevant by modern methods of conducting war,
which make it impossible to avoid harming civilians
 Attempts to apply just war principles may result in the ‘wrong’ outcome. This
could happen as the requirements of jus in bello may contradict those of jus ad
bellum, in the sense that a party with a just cause risks defeat because it is
fighting with its hands tied behind its back. Surely, once a war has started,
 military tactics should be determined by practical considerations, aimed at
ensuring a swift and certain victory, rather than moral considerations? This issue
has become particularly topical in relation to the issue of combating terrorism,
sometimes linked to the so-called problem of dirty hands. ! Dirty hands, problem
of : The problem that it may (arguably) be necessary for politicians to transgress
accepted moral codes for the sake of the political community, making it right to
do wrong.
 Third, just war thinking may be applicable only in circumstances in which the
parties to a dispute share the same or similar cultural and moral beliefs. Only
then can one party be deemed to be just, while the other is unjust. As many
modern wars, such as those that have been fought under the banner of the ‘war
on terror’ (see p. 223), are cross-cultural wars, if not civilizational struggles, this
requirement is no longer achievable. Military rivals may thus both legitimately
claim to have justice on their side, reflecting the incompatibility of their value
systems and ethical beliefs.