Arguments Against Just War Theory

War crimes and crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in International Law. The definitions of a war crime comes under very specific definitions but are not always easily so defined, as war can be very hostile and unpredictable. War can appear as unjust and unwarranted, but in some circumstances, it is necessary. Just War theory is a concept that attempts to guide war into a more just path. The theory recognises that in times of war, traditional ethics are not applied but there should be ethical guidelines for war. Just War theory judges war twice, first for the reason that the states are fighting for and secondly, the practises in which they adopt in the actual fighting. Jus Ad Bellum or justice of war provides the guidelines

The Treatment of Australian Prisoners of War in World War 2 from the Japanese is a heinous war crime under the Geneva Conventions of 1929. This essay serves to differentiate between what is classified as a war crime and what is considered not through looking at various cases studies of Australian involvement in certain wars as both the victim and alleged offender.

The idea of Just War theory is not necessarily to condone war but to prevent war by showing that it is wrong and motivates states to find other ways of solving conflicts. Throughout war, we see many horrors committed against people particularly civilians and just war theory aims to alleviate the horror of war by providing a map to determine whether it is right to go to war initially and for nations to govern their actions throughout war. The concept of just war theory paved the way to establishing a way of prosecuting those who committed crimes during war. International Law, established by the United Nations defines the legal responsibilities of states in their conduct with each and the treatment of individuals. Under the International law is the International humanitarian law, which

The Japanese Government signed the 1929 Geneva Convention; this meant that the Japanese had to treat the prisoners of war with minimum rights and humane treatment. However, the Japanese refused to consent to the conventions terms and when the war arrived the Japanese refused to observe its requirement. By the end of the war, 8,031 Prisoners of War died due to the constant battle with disease, starvation, exhaustion due to work and the brutality of the Japanese. The P.O.W.’s survivors remember the Japanese soldiers as being cruel and indifferent and the cruelty came in many forms from extreme violence and torture to minor acts of physical punishment, humiliation, and neglect. However, many prisoners narrate cases of compassion by the Japanese and even a sense of shared burdens. When World War 2 ended, many of the Japanese guards were prosecuted with war crimes committed against breaches of the Geneva conventions about prisoners and civilians. Australian Prisoners of War that survived wrote statements and testimonies about their treatments in the camps. There were three levels of trails conducted for the war crimes committed by the Japanese. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East prosecuted Twenty-eight high-ranking Japanese officials and