Just War Theory

The theory of just war is a military ethics doctrine tracing its origin from catholic and Roman philosophy. The Catholic Church in the United States of America was very vocal in the 1960s in asserting the theory of just war especially in their pastoral letter that were released in 1963 known as ‘The challenge of peace: God’s promise and our response. ’ Moral theologians, international makers and ethicists on just war theory maintain that for any conflict to qualify as just it should meet religious, philosophical and political justice criteria.

When our eyes are cast back in the history of America, it is true that US has been involved in various wars for example the First World War, the Second World War and Afghanistan war. In the light of the just war theory, was United States ethically right to enter into these wars? This is what this research will mainly focus on. It will analyze the reasons that made US to enter into these wars from ethics point of view using the theory of just war as the parameter. The paper starts with a short introduction then the main points and at the end there is a conclusion which is basically the summary of the key points.

Order custom essay Just War Theory with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

At the very end of this paper is a list of the resources that are used in this research, properly formatted in accordance with MLA formatting style. According to the United States Catholic Bishops, for any military action to be applied to a conflict it must meet four conditions for it to be legitimate. First of all they say that for any military action to be taken, the damage caused by the aggressor must be enormous, specific, grave and lasting. Secondly, it should be used as the last option that is, when all other means at disposal proves to be ineffective or impractical.

Thirdly, the prospects of success before entering the war must be high. The fourth and the last criterion is that there should be lesser evils and disorders than the much that the aggressor(s) caused (Evans 4) Generally there are two sets of criteria for determining whether war is just or not. The first addresses the right to enter in the war while the second one is about the conduct of the military in the war. The former holds that the reason for joining the war must be just but should not for used for revenging or repossessing things captured in other words the cause must be just.

In comparative justice principle, injustices suffered by one party must exceed that of the other. Again, war cannot be waged by anybody thus can only be waged by a legitimate authority. It is also argued that there must be high chances of winning the war for fighting a losing battle is wastage of resources. Also war should be used as the last resort or when all other methods have failed. Finally the gains of entering the war must be equal to the loss and harms incurred or in short, macro-proportionality must apply.

After the war begins, the just war theory holds that any military action should only target specific places and individuals especially the enemies and their strongholds and the condition of proportionality must apply or put in another way, the amount of force to be used must be gauged by the amount of harm caused and that only a minimum force must be put to task for the goal is not to destroy and harm civilians but to correct the mistakes that were done by the aggressor(s) (Evans, 5)

According to the just war theory the entry of United States in the First World War in 1917 could be said to have been just this was because the decision to join the war was made by a legitimate body and not by a single individual. The then president Woodrow Wilson asked the congress to convene twice to determine the way forward. It was in order for US to declare war on Germany as it kept on violating all the agreements that had been made for example it violated the agreement that it would suspend all unrestricted submarine warfare.

Germany had also tried to entice Mexico to join the war against US on condition that Germany would help it to liberate itself from the United States. The other reason was that Germany attacked all neutral ships that neared what was referred to as zones irrespective of what they carried. This affected US in that its passengers were killed and the trade network was interrupted. (Coffman 25) In accordance with just war theory, if the harm is long lasting and grievous then the war is just. The same was the case in the First World War where the US was losing its people and property due to German’s malicious activities.

Again as per this theory the war was just because it was used as the last option. At first the US never wanted to join the war and was following the policy of isolation. It used diplomatic talks and signing of agreements to shun war but this proved to be futile and the only option that was left was war. This war was geared towards stopping what Germany was doing and correcting the mistakes that were done and was not meant as a revenge but when the war damage assessment is done, the damage caused by this war was more than what the aggressor had caused thus as per this theory’s principle the war could be said to have been unjust.

(Coffman 26) The US entry on the world war II could also be said to be just according to the just war theory because it was declared by a legitimate body in 1941 after Japan attacked US spheres of interest in Pearl Harbor. Though the war was declared by a recognized legitimate body according to this theory it could be regarded as unjust because it was more of revenge than order restoration. The US wanted to challenge Japan which had proved to be a bother in the Pacific region.

The harm that Japan had caused as per the just war theory was not grievous, lasting or that big enough to have merited the consequences that resulted. Just war theory holds that the harm caused by the war should not exceed the damage done by the aggressor but in the case of Japan, the war caused enormous damage in fact about 100,000 people perished when the US dropped atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This is a clear indicator that US was not only targeting the combatants and their strategic positions but also targeted the civilians and thus in the light of the above the war was unjust.

(Coffman 27) As per this theory the war could be said to have been just because the chances of US winning the Second World War were high although this was later proved to have been a miscalculation for it extended longer than expected and that was why the US was forced to resort to atomic bombs. This war could also be said to be unjust if it is judged the theory’s principle that argues that war should not be used as a means of achieving personal gains and in this case US used it as such.

It wanted to protect its interests in the Western Europe nations because it had invested a lot in those countries in terms of loans and war materials and thus if they were to be defeated by Germany then this would have meant losing all that it had invested. (Gaido and Walters) The third war that will be analyzed using this theory is the US entry in the Afghanistan war in 2001. According to this theory, this war was justified in all ways. The war was declared by a legitimate institution that is the US government and was in response to terrorist activities of bombing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

This was the height of terrorism and that was why the US was forced to act. The war was thus meant to control terrorism but not to avenge. When the issues of damages that were caused by these attacks are assessed, they were enormous that the amount of harm that resulted from this war and for this reason the war was just. As per the theory, the war should be used as the last resort and this is what happened in Afghanistan. The US had tried to use all other methods that were at its disposal and they proved to be ineffective. Terrorism continued to be on the increase despite the measures that were taken against it.

The US had tried to hold talks with terrorists asking them to stop their terrorism activities. They kept attacking US citizens and other areas of interest and at this time it was pushed beyond limit and had to act. (Gareau 16) As per the just war theory, there is no need to engage yourself in a losing battle but here the US was confident enough that it would win this war and indeed it won thus on the light of the above, the war could be said to have been just. In conclusion, the just war theory is a theory that is used to determine whether the war is just or not.

It holds that the war is just if is declared by a legitimately recognized body, if the chances of winning are clear, if it is for correcting the harms done as opposed to revenge and if it is used as the last option when all other methods have failed. Using it to determine whether US was just to enter in the First World War, Second World War and the Afghanistan war, it is right to justify US entry in the first world war and the Afghanistan war but using the same criteria its entry on the second war could not be justified. Works Cited:

Evans, M. Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. Edinburgh University Press, 2005 Coffman E. M. The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in First World War. University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Gaido, D. and Walters, D. Socialist Workers Party/Workers Party Split. The Second World War: What the War is About. 2005 http://marxists. catbull. com/history//etol/document/fi/1938-1949/swp- wpsplit/swpwp01. htm Gareau, F. H. State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to The War on Terrorism. Zed Books, 2004

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer