Just War Theory (DP IB Global Politics: HL): Revision Note

What is just war theory?

• Just war theory is a framework used to judge whether going to war, and how war is fought, can ever be morally justified

• It rests on a central tension: war causes immense harm, yet sometimes using force may be the only way to prevent greater injustice

• Just war theory tries to set out the conditions under which the use of force becomes acceptable

• It has two core dimensions

  • Jus ad bellum ("justice in going to war") - the criteria that must be met before a state can justifiably enter a conflict

  • Jus in bello ("justice in the conduct of war") - the rules that must be followed once fighting has begun

Origins of just war theory

• Just war thinking dates back to St Augustine (4th–5th century AD), who argued that Christians could use violence in defence of others

• Over time, the theory moved beyond its Christian roots and became a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions

Jus ad bellum

• Jus ad bellum sets out the conditions a state must meet before entering armed conflict can be considered morally justified

The six key criteria

Just cause

• There must be a genuine and serious reason to go to war

• Self-defence is the clearest example: if a state is attacked, or faces an imminent attack, conflict is widely considered justified

• The UN Charter endorses this principle, recognising a state's right to defend itself

Legitimate authority

• Only a recognised, lawful actor - typically a head of state or government - has the authority to declare war

• Unofficial or illegitimate groups cannot meet this condition

Right intention

• The aim must be to achieve justice, not to pursue self-interest

• Entering a war to seize resources, expand territory or gain political advantage is never morally justified, even if other criteria are met

Probability of success

• If a state has no realistic chance of winning, it should not enter conflict, even in self-defence

• A war that cannot be won will only cause unnecessary death and suffering without achieving its goal

Last resort

• All peaceful alternatives - diplomacy, sanctions, negotiation - must have been genuinely attempted and exhausted before force is used

Proportionality

• The overall good achieved by going to war must outweigh the harm caused

• States must weigh up the likely costs - in lives, destruction, and instability - before committing to conflict

Jus in bello

• Jus in bello asks how war must be fought once it has begun

• Even a just war can be waged unjustly - jus in bello sets out the moral boundaries that apply to all parties, regardless of who started the conflict

• Today, these principles are embedded in international humanitarian law, most notably the Geneva Conventions, which attempt to translate jus in bello into legally-binding obligations

Key principles

Distinction

• Combatants must always distinguish between military targets and civilians

• Deliberately targeting civilians is never permitted

Proportionality

• Force used must be proportionate to the military objective

• Excessive force that causes unnecessary death or destruction cannot be justified, even against legitimate targets

Military necessity

• Only force that is genuinely necessary to achieve a military aim is permissible

• Gratuitous violence or destruction serves no legitimate purpose

Humane treatment

• Prisoners of war must be treated humanely at all times

• Torture, abuse, and degrading treatment are prohibited

Protection of non-combatants

• Medical personnel, aid workers and those caring for the wounded must never be targeted

• Their ability to operate must be protected.

Jus in bello in practice

• Almost every modern conflict reveals the gap between the ideals of jus in bello and the reality of the battlefield.

• Civilian casualties - in many cases deliberately caused - are a feature of contemporary warfare

  • The ratio of civilian to combatant deaths remains a contested and troubling statistic

• Critics argue that jus in bello has become more aspiration than constraint

Criticisms

1. Jus ad bellum says if a state believes it is going to be attacked, it has the right to attack first

   • Some consider this to be vague and easily manipulated

2. Realists argue that morality has no place in warfare and idealist principles such as the just war theory are pointless in real-world situations

3. Pacifists argue that there can never be a moral justification for violent conflict

4. Some argue that just war theory only addresses the actions of the state using conventional warfare

   • Modern warfare is far more complicated with multiple actors and scenarios not imagined in 13^th-century Italy

5. Cultural relativists are cautious of European idea of morality dominating global norms surrounding conflict

   • They see it as another example of these states exerting their dominance