Until our own article on Just War Theory is written, here
is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
Wikipedia
defines the Just War theory as:
a doctrine of
military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin studied by moral theologians, ethicists and
international policy makers which holds that a conflict can
and ought to meet the criteria of philosophical, religious or political justice,
provided it follows certain conditions.
The Just War
Theory was asserted as an authoritative Catholic Church teaching by the
·
the damage inflicted by the
aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and
certain;
·
all other means of putting an end
to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
·
there must be serious prospects
of success;
·
the use of arms must not produce
evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern
means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first
establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second
establishing jus in
Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot
therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have
done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be
to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when
the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a
grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human
rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a
conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice
suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.
Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as
fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may
wage war.
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely
for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention,
while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where
disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable
alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not
practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a
delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be
proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as
the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus
in
Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are
to act: (Jus in
Distinction
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of
distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and
not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create.
The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no
military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary
civilians.
Proportionality
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of
proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the
knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in
relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).
Military necessity
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of
minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military
defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm
caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive
in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle
is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.
Ending a war: jus post bellum
In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis
Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just
War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace
treaties ,reconstruction, war crimes trials, and war reparations.
Orend, for instance, proposes the following principles:
Just cause for termination
A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable
vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the
aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of
surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and
perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively a state may end a war if it becomes clear
that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached
without using excessive force.
Right intention
A state must only terminate a war under the conditions
agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state
must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation
into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
Public declaration and authority
The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority,
and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.
Discrimination
The victor state is to differentiate between political and
military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be
limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Truth and
reconciliation may sometimes be more important than punishing war crimes.
Proportionality
Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights
that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and
any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the
world community are not permitted.