The Just War Theory

1) Jus ad bellum - justice in going to war
When is warfare morally justifiable?

2) Jus in bello - justice in warfare
What moral constraints should be placed on combatants when war takes place?

3) Jus post bellum - justice after war
What is the morally right way for a population/nation to be treated after war has ended?

i) JUST CAUSE - WAR SHOULD BE WAGED FOR A JUST CAUSE

St. Augustine: "a just war is one that avenges wrong, when a nation or a state has to be punished for refusing to make amends for wrongs inflicted by its subjects or to restore what it has seized unjustly

Aquinas: a just war is one that is in response to some fault on part of those who will be attacked

For example: Western forces in WWII

ii) DECLARED BY A JUST AUTHORITY - WAR SHOULD BE DECLARED BY THE RIGHT KIND OF AUTHORITY

Aquinas: war shouldn't be waged by individuals since they can be taken to court; just as states can take action where there are internal disturbances to punish evildoers, so can states do this against evildoers of another country

For examples: most wars

iii) JUST INTENTION - WAR SHOULD BE WAGED WITH A JUST ATTITUDE

Aquinas: a right intention is the "advancement of good or avoidance"; a wrong intention is the "passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power and such like things"

For example: a just war is one waged purely to bring about justice/peace rather than revenge

iv) PROPORTIONALITY - WAR IN RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO ORIGINAL INJUSTICE

Exceptions: if seemingly disproportionate actions prevent further violence i.e Hiroshima/Nagasaki, invasion in response to repeated bombing

v) LAST RESORT - WAR SHOULD ONLY BE WAGED AFTER OTHER EFFORTS TO SOLVE CRISIS HAVE FAILED

For example: war after negotiations/discussions/sanctions

i) PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY - USE OF WEAPONS MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THREAT POSED
For example: carefully targeted bombs against buildings known to be attack bases (not Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory bombing in Sudan 1998 by Bill Clinton)

ii) PRINCIPLE OF VINDICATION - NO DIRECT ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS
For example: not 1945 US-backed coup in Guatemala, 20,000 civilians killed

i) PUNISHMENT - VICTORS TOO SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR WAR CRIMES
For example: Nuremberg Trials

ii) PROPORTIONALITY - PEACE SETTLEMENTS TO BE FAIR
For example: not Treaty of Versailles

iii) DISCRIMINATION - ONLY LEADERS TO BE PUNISHED
For example: post-WWI German citizens

iv) COMPENSATION - TO BE TAKEN FROM GOVERNING ELITE/VANQUISHED ARMED FORCES
For example: post-WWI Germany

v) RIGHTS VINDICATION - RIGHTS TO BE RESPECTED
War is justified if it brings liberal democracy/rights previously not respected to country
For example: NATO forces in Kuwait/Iraq

vi) LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS - REASONABLE CHANCE THAT INTENDED OUTCOMES ARE ACHEIVABLE

For example: waging war against countries with smaller/less able armies

vii) COMPARATIVE JUSTICE - BOTH SIDES OF CONFLICT MUST BE CONSIDERED

For example: understanding opposing views and still seeing one as just/injust