Just War Analysis

The United States Army is internally governed by a series of regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These regulations establish the rules and guidelines that direct daily standards of conduct and how special situations are approached. Some of these rules and regulations are punitive while others are not. The United States congress and the United States President both have the power to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice while the Army’s top brass has the ability to revise, create, or delete regulations. Among this body of law is the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 91 “Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer”.

Just America or Just in War? Throughout the decades, history has recorded all the wars in which the United States has participated in. Some may consider that the United States’ participation in foreign affairs may have been cruel, or unnecessary; while in other cases, others find it essential for the United States to fight for the common good. Therefore, philosophers—in the pursuit of justice—have designed methods that dictate how a nation can justly engage into a war, one of this methods being the Just War theory.

In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. These relativists as described are mixing up moral and cultural distinctions, or are simply not willing to completely understanding the cultures they are standing up for. There are two different types of relativism Ethical, and Cultural, that rely upon the argument of cultural differences, which have flaws that make the argument unsound.

However, since the War Crimes Act of 1996 this law has enforced breaches of the Geneva Conventions to be processed according to policy. Risk are inherent among soldiers in the military, therefore understanding what soldiers represent should empower them to uphold the standards, live the Army Values

Just war also frames war in the wrong way and It focuses on a limited conflict. There are long term conflicts to think about before rallying up and setting for battle. “The use of military force to stop the killing in Rwanda would have been, in my view, a just war” (Walzer, Pg. xi). Walzer describes the use of military forces being avoided if possible, but used if necessary.

These individuals had to follow their orders and ignore their own moral laws to prevent disobeying the law. This shows how people need to focus more on following their

My main defense for "just" wars is rooted in what the international community has failed to do instead of what they have done. For example, major world powers failed to protect the Tutsi ethnicity during the Rwandan Genocide during the 1990s. This was a catastrophe that was widely reported

Just war theory is undoubtedly the most effective view on the ethics of war and peace. The tradition dominates both moral and legal reasoning concerning war. It sets the tone, and the parameters, for the great debate. Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts namely: Jus ad bellum; jus in bellum; jus post bellum. (Orend; 2005)

But is it enough? I also appreciate that through the years the just war theory has been expanded to include new parameters for methods and reasoning among other points (p. 143-4). But is it enough? 2) A major dilemma in war is the

The just war theory provides us two basic conditions that make it permissible to start or partake in a war justly. The first condition is the “jus ad bellum,” which clarifies when it's just for a state to go to war. The second condition is the “jus in bello” which also elaborates on how soldiers can fight a war justly. The moral responsibilities and constraints of soldiers are stated under these two conditions. Constraints such as the avoidance for a soldier to intentionally harm a civilian is one of the basic principles which combatants from both sides of the war are expected to obey.

As a culture evolves to reflect the changing sentiments of a people, so too do the social structures keeping it in place. Regardless of the context, each concept relies on the other for support, thereby ensuring their initial establishment and continued existence. The moment cultural values shift often indicates a broader reconstruction of institutions of power. A new government, for example, must develop a functional social apparatus that not only maintains its power, but also aligns with the ideals of its people. Conversely, major events might lead to an upheaval of public opinion, allowing a society to outgrow its current structures.

According to Christian Enemark and Christopher Michaelsen, “The cause of a state seeking to wage war is just if it appeals to a moral principle higher than mere self-interest” . They name three “primary just causes”, which are “pre-emptive self-defence [sic], humanitarian intervention and enforcement of the collective will” . The main focus here will be on self-defense and humanitarian intervention. One could argue that the coalition acted out of self-defense by pointing out the concern it had with Iraq producing weapons of

After World War II, several of the Nazi soldiers were questioned about their reasoning behind the corrupt actions they were guilty of---killing hundreds of thousands of men and women, destroying families in the process, and marking their time as a dark part of history. Who on earth would do such a thing? What could their excuse possibly be? Well, to them, they were simply following orders. It’s obvious to believe that the soldiers would find their humanity and resist their commands, but they didn't.

A country can validate war when attacked and “The most vital interests of that same country are threatened and where there are no promising alternatives to using force” (Haas, “When is War Justifiable?”)

We all know that the necessity of peacekeeping and the importance of sound legal justification for the employment of use of force has been a key issue in international law since the days of Grotius and his “Just War” doctrine. Increasing interdependency of states and the authority the United Nations Charter and Security Council results in a complex system of law where the legality of use of force depends as much on defensibility of the act as it does on the rules of international law governing use of force. Moreover, the right of self-defense, along with the principle of invitation for peacekeeping force’s assistance, which delineates the border between legitimate and illegitimate uses of force. Here before knowing the essence of the use of