The notion of 'just war' can be considered as a moral philosophy of the War debating the legitimacy of wars and the way wars are made. The existence of just wars thus supposes that violence can be ethical. However, it has to be underlined that even for the just wars theoreticians, war is never good per se, it remains something bad, with painful consequences, and it can only be justified as a means to remedy another bad situation. Questioning the existence of just wars is particularly relevant today insofar as this theory has become "fashionable", especially since the attacks of 9-11. The whole war on terrorism that has followed these attacks is indeed always defined as a just war. That will have to be discussed. To analyze this theory, it is first essential to understand precisely its classical and historical definition and then, to take a look at the recent evolutions of the doctrine and to wonder in what sense it can correspond to recent wars.
[...] o Just cause implies that there must be a just cause to wage a war. This principle is often considered the most important condition of a just war. o Right authority, which suggests that a war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. o Right intention, which suggests that the aim of war must not be to pursue national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. o Reasonable hope, according to which there must be good grounds for believing that the desired outcome can be achieved. [...]
[...] A redefinition of the theory considering the “enjeux politiques” of the current world The 20th century gives new dimensions to the “Just Three main points are particularly noticeable A new factor: how the war is declared Firstly, the way the war is declared is now part of the criteria used to describe a war as just. That is the reason why, today, a war is often considered as just if it has the approval of the United Nations Security Council. [...]
[...] o The mala per rule, indicating that some acts such as torture or rape are prohibited, even during wars. When all the conditions of the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello are reunited, then the war is just and legitimate “Just as the happy medium between pacifism and militarism By legitimizing certain wars, the just war theory thus appears as a happy medium between pacifism and militarism. Indeed, pacifists express the value judgement that war is bad, they have the conviction that war has only negative effects and claim that there should never be any war, as a war can never improve a situation. [...]
[...] The case of Kosovo is different: there was no mandate given by the United Nations and the final result, the removal of the Milosevic Regime, was not a goal of the war. Nonetheless, the situation the Kosovars faced required this war which, even without a United Nations mandate, was backed by a lot of countries and is now seen as a just war The Afghanistan and the Iraqi Wars: same goals, yet different appreciations On the other hand, the Afghanistan and the Iraqi wars show that two wars pursuing the same objectives can be considered very differently. [...]
[...] As for right intention, only two possibilities are presented by Saint Thomas Aquinas: either the furthering of some good, or the avoidance of some evil. Thus, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, a just cause is not enough; there must also be a right intention for a war to be successful and just Grotius, inventor of modern international The last very important theoretician of the just war theory is Hugo Grotius in the 17th century. Grotius largely secularized the theory, therefore making it more acceptable for the age of the Enlightenment. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
