The first criteria of Just War Theory is jus ad bellum, the just initiation of a war. Because the US is responding to an attack initiated by ISIS that places American institutions and Americans at harm, they are retaliating with the intention of self defense as opposed to acting out of aggression. This serves as a just cause of war. Additionally, failure to combat ISIS could potentially escalate the boomerang effect, a phenomenon in which citizens of the United States travel to Syria and Iraq and return to the states radicalized (In the News 8-30-16). This means that the US can justifiably send troops to the Middle East because they are acting with the right intention by preventing the “credible threat of imminent attack” (Crawford 2003). Furthermore, the US serves a legitimate authority because it is a sovereign state. It is able to provide means of centralized control and thus sidesteps any confusion over dealing with private actors and private armies initiating violence (Module 12). The United States has also exhausted all other options of attempting to reach a common ground with ISIS before deciding to employ “the use of military force” (Crawford 2003). While diplomatic measures might be viable in other conflicts, terrorism is unique in nature because it cannot be solved through peace talks alone. This is largely due to the fact that terrorists are vastly different from states in terms of how they operate- they have “different power relationships, goals, deterrence
Lastly, the notion to hurt one’s enemy peoples to force their government into a complete surrender and to minimize the general loss of one’s own troops is immoral. Naturally, the typical ethical standards of war would not justify any use of dehumanization in order for a nation to supersede the other. The Japanese became dehumanized in the minds of American combatants and civilians. The process enabled greater cultural and physical differences between white Americans and Japanese than between the former and their European foes. In Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977), he defines “ the use of force by one nation against another is always wrong unless the latter has already forfeited its basic rights.” Walzer is clearly stating that wars; especially nuclear wars are unjust if they strip away basic civilian rights. In other words, they are ponds in a game of political and nuclear warfare.
When is it justifiable to engage in war? This question has plagued humanity for centuries and continues to do so. The theory of just war addresses three important questions when considering and dealing with war. These components are when is it justifiable to go to war, the right ways to conduct proceedings during war, and the justification of terminating war. The first part of the theory, originally written in Latin as jus ad bellum, is an important idea within Pope Urban II’s, “Speech at Clermont.” In the 11th century Pope Urban II gave this speech as a call for crusade with the hope of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim control. They eventually succeeded in this mission and took the city of Jerusalem. The “Speech at Clermont,” is now an important source for understanding the justifications of going to war within the medieval just war theory. Throughout the speech Pope Urban II justified the crusade by claiming it was the responsibility of the Christian people to regain the Holy Land, to protect their fellow Christians in the East, and their duty to stop the “disgraceful” and “demon worshipping” Muslim people.
One important theory within International Relations shows a moral aspect on how to conduct war. This theory is called Just War Theory. Just War Theory is a doctrine of military ethics from a philosophical and Catholic viewpoint. This theory consists of two parts: Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and Jus in bello (right conduct within war).
In all of Human history, only 8% of that time has been completely at peace. From 150 million to 1 billion people in total have been killed by war. That’s 150 million families at least who have had their loved ones ripped from their grasp. This is far too many. War is unnecessary and barbaric. In “just and unjust war” by Howard Zinn the complexities of whether or not a war can be called just or unjust are debated. Peace can be achieved. the three crucial steps toward making world peace are education, open communication, and human rights laws must be strictly enforced.
Much like the rest of the world, wars in the United States began before it was even considered a country. The revolutionary war was a brave and noble war fought by America’s earliest ancestors in the 1770s in the hopes of creating a better country for their prosperity. However, because it was not declared by an esteemed government, some would argue that it was not actually considered “just”. With the American Civil War, there were so many factors involved that the argument could be made both ways (2). Today, it has been decreed that the Civil War was fought entirely as an opposition to slavery in the South; however, at the time of the war, many more questions could be made as to the official reason. Because those battles were fought so long ago, theorists may only use the little information left behind to determine the justification of warfare.
What is the Just War theory and how did it pertain to St. Augustine? According to Augustine there is no private right to kill. According to Paul Ramsey opposes in The Just War, Christian participation in warfare “was not actually an exception to the commandment, “you shall not murder” but instead an expression of the Christian understanding of moral and political responsibility. One can kill only under the authority of God. St. Augustine argued that Christian rulers had such an obligation to make peace for the protection of his subjects even if the only way to eliminate such a threat was through force of arms. St. Augustine believed that in wars there was a right intention.
There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of
Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.
As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.
The first part of Just War Theory is Jus Ad Bellum—America has a morally righteous cause to go to war because it is motivated by defending civilians. Part of this is that a just war can only be taken by a legitimate authority, most commonly a state. Not only would the United States be a legitimate state, the president will have authorization from congress to start this war, legitimizing a war against ISIS domestically. Another part of jus ad bellum is having a “right intention” that is motivated by defense. This is the case for ISIS. In this scenario considering ISIS launched a series of attacks against American embassies, killing hundred. ISIS has not and will not just stop attacking civilians until they are forced to or they get what they want. A
Our question concerning ISIS, illustrates a plan on what should be done about them and by whom. As stated previous, instead of counterterrorism and lying low, troops should be put on the grounds to finally control and help stop what the Islamic State have being doing for two years. With realism, it challenges us to have the primary goal of survival. We ought to conquer and be the last to survive. With that being said, States can never be certain about others’ intention, in this case ISIS’s. We will never know when they will attack unless we take control of the situation and take them over. We have the power to take out ISIS and should do it soon while we have time before the next 9-11 happens. At the end of the day we need to realize innocent people are being taken advantage and ISIS is going after the weak. They have no moral believes and will do anything to make a names for themselves like performing suicide missions, blowing up state capitals and highly populated areas. The Islamic State needs to be stop and the United States needs to come in sense with other nation-states to stop this nonsense once and for
The Just War Theory is a doctrine founded by Saint Augustine which has helped bring much discussion and debate to wars and the morality to fight in them. Wars and fights between people have gone on forever and are not perceived to stop anytime soon so it is important that some people thought about when and why they should ever fight. For many years Christians never part toke in this fighting due to teachings of the Bible and Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Saint Augustine would be one of the first to talk about how a Christian could be a soldier and serve God at the same time. Through this thought we would receive the Just War Theory which gave a set of requirements for someone to partake
War between contesting organizations is an irreparable act that should be avoided at all costs. Lives are lost, people are hurt, and war altogether is simply economically and politically costly. However, “as bad as war might be, it may still be necessary if it prevents a greater harm” (Crawford 2003). As in the case of the inherent evil, ISIS, whose ultimate goal is to establish a global caliphate that will abolish anything and anyone that is not in line with their ideology, war may be the only viable option. They have directly led numerous acts of terror and killed many innocent individuals, including American civilians, soldiers, and ambassadors. Therefore, in abidance to Crawford’s Just War Theory and the ethical frameworks of utilitarianism
ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is an extremist group that branched from the Sunni terrorist group, al Qaeda, specifically the Iraq faction. Although ISIS has primarily focused on initiatives in the Middle Eastern region, the recent killing of American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotlof following U.S. airstrikes targeting ISIS, has caused controversy as to whether ISIS is a threat to the United States. The first invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003 gradually led to the conflict known as the Iraq War. After decades spent fighting, US troops are still on the ground in the Middle East today. Over the past few years, ISIS has emerged as a major player in the region, and has been brutally attacking its own country and people over the past year, attempting to take control of the entire states of Iraq and Syria. The growing influence of ISIS and their use of extreme violence has led to debate over whether the United States should send troops to help combat ISIS. In this report, we will determine if it is economically savvy or detrimental to send troops, if it is ethical to invade combat ISIS on the ground, and if it is politically prudent to do so.
Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum are the three stages of Just War Theory. Jus ad Bellum pertains to the ethics of starting a just war, with the principles being having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. Jus in Bello covers the conduct of individuals at war, with discrimination and proportionality being the guidelines. Meaning, only use force against legitimate targets in war, and only use an amount of force that is morally appropriate. Jus Post Bellum discusses how justice should be served following the cessation of a war, with discrimination being a big