Why Is Just War Wrong

1410 Words6 Pages
War is something that, at this point in history, can be arguably deemed as part of the human condition. For whatever reason, it appears that humans are destined not to get along and that violent conflict is the preferred method of solving issues that arise. Whether it be fighting for the love of Helen of Troy or espousing the likes of God and Allah as a justification, war is one thing that time has yet to see the end of. That being said, it comes as no surprise that academics, scientists, and philosophers alike have taken to attempting to understand why wars happen. A controversial and somewhat debated topic is the concept of the Just War Principles. These principles attempt to understand and perhaps explain the rationale behind why war is…show more content…
Essentially, innocent lives must be in danger in order for war to be the just cause of action. With this in mind, comparative justice takes into account the idea that there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of the conflict, but in order to go to war, the suffering of one side must significantly outweigh the suffering of another (Just War Theory). This principle in particular is problematic in that it allows for gross exploitation in the political system, but more on that later. Politics, however, does play a role in these principles. The idea of competent authority dictates that only those authorities give power by the public may wage war (Just War Theory). This is because judging the justifications of war cannot be fully realized if war is not waged in a society in which justice and a clear definition of justice have not been established. Cue, right intention. Force and violence may only be employed if the causes are truly just and are enacted for that purpose (Just War Theory). Again, this principle is potentially problematic. The probability of success is perhaps one…show more content…
The principles associated with jus in bello are the following: distinction, proportionality, military necessity, fair treatment of prisoners of war, and no means malum in se. The first principle is distinction and is perhaps among the most important principles when conducting a just war; it is also among the most neglected and exploited. Distinction refers to the idea that combat and acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, armies, etc. and not at innocent civilians and bystanders simply caught up in a circumstance they did not create (Just War Theory). Among those things that have been prohibited due to this distinction include the bombing of residential areas, committing acts of terrorism against civilians, and attacking targets that are considered to be neutral. This also includes the idea of not attacking combatants that have surrendered or those that pose no immediate threat (i.e. those who are parachuting or are shipwrecked). Similar, but different to proportionality in enacting war, proportionality during war refers to the idea that harm and damage caused to civilian populations and property must be deemed as less excessive proportionate to anticipated direct military advantage (Just War Theory). Similarly, military necessity states that an attack or act of violence must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy (Just War Theory). This principle is

More about Why Is Just War Wrong

Open Document