Just War.

Daenerys

Daenerys

The Last Dragon
Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2006
Messages
11,178
Age
33
Location
Suburban hell.
Gil
1
This is something we were talking about in RE class today, and it seems to be a very interesting topic, I'm quite annoyed we didn't have more discussion on it, as everyones different opinions on it were interesting.

Can there ever be such a thing as a Just War?

This is what we got told in RE -

Principles of the Just War

  • A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  • A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  • A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  • A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  • The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  • The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  • The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
So, what is your opinion?

I'll add more later.
 
I swear, those're the exact same words with which we were presented last year.

It really does look good on paper. I'm not much of a pacifist but I'd rather not attempt to show how little I advocate war in the first place. The concept of a Just War is of what every war should consist.

If it's a last resort, after all non-violent options have been exhausted, then it's basically because democracy has failed and, without the war, someone's going to be trampled. When acting in self-defense [or, indeed, intervention], there's very little to justify - you either get trampled, again, or you stand and defend what is rightfully yours.

I could go through and analyse the points, explaining why each contributes to the Just War theory and makes it work but, really, the point is that I don't condone war but, should it fall into a Just War, then I really have no quarrel. As for 'thinking about the soldiers' - yes, we should but, let's not forget, the soldiers chose to be there. Unless Conscription was introduced to the particular war, then the soldiers are really just doing their jobs, as it were. I picked up on that because I remember discussing it in my RE class, too.
 
Hm, that's interesting. Honestly though, war is such a strange thing that I think to deem it "just" because it meets certain criteria is arbitrary. No matter what, each side believes that they are doing is "just." The leaders of Al Qaeda don't wake up each morning, rub their hands together, and cackle about how evil they are. They earnestly believe that what they are doing is right and completely legitimate-- even attack civilians. To them, those civilians are corrupt and weak. To me, it's extremely difficult to say whether a war or actions taken in war are 'just.' For instance, the idea that civilians can never be targets: what about the atomic bomb dropped on Japan? They were certainly the targets. However, it saved millions of American lives because it ended the war. To me, the criteria that define a just war seem completely arbitrary.
 
even attack civilians. To them, those civilians are corrupt and weak
Click to expand...
according to the geneva convention, innocent civilians, by that i mean people who have nothing to do with a war, are legitimate targets as they contribute to that countrys war effort, ie hiroshima & nagasaki and the blitz.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
Click to expand...
that would justify israel invading lebanon and the gaza strip, but the peace is only good for them, not the palestainians who have been murdered.
 
The Young Knives said:
according to the geneva convention, innocent civilians, by that i mean people who have nothing to do with a war, are legitimate targets as they contribute to that countrys war effort, ie hiroshima & nagasaki and the blitz.
Click to expand...

The Fourth Geneva Convention was about the protection of civilians. Civilians were classified as those "who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities, and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power."

Newsflash: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were known art capitals. The United States wasn't targeting any bases. The children who were killed by the bomb...what did they contribute to the war effort? I'm not trying to question the decision to bomb Japan or anything, I'm just saying it's very grey area. American civilians contributed to the WW2 effort; can you imagine if Japan/Germany had attacked U.S. civilians? It certainly would have been construed as a horrific and unwarranted attack on civilians.

I agree with the idea that civilians shouldn't be attacked during war time. However, it's war. It's a very strange concept (at least to me) to decide to kill the citizens of another country en masse and make rules about it. And really, who is going to enforce these arbitrary rules? No one can really impartially judge who is waging a just war and who isn't.
 
the children were collateral damage.

i know the US wasnt targeting any war bases, McNamara said that if the US had lost the war they would have been executed as war criminals.

no can really be impartial your right, as they people who were jurors for the war crimes charges were representatives of the germans and japanese enemies, ie US, Britain, France
 
I think that there is such a thing as just war. Some wars must be fought for survival and to intervene to stop atrocities.
People who sign up to the military as combat personnel, effectively pledge their life to their country. It does not matter so much if they die, than if non-combatants die.
War brings about change and upheaval, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

I think that wars in the name of security, national sovereignty, against human rights abuses, and to protect economies are neccessary.
 
"As long as there are people there will always be war"

and "Humans weren't designed to bring each other happiness. From the moment we were thrown into this world, we caused each other nothing but pain and misery".
 
The idea of a just war is completely arbitrary. Depending on which school of international relations philosophy you adhere to, your idea of a 'just' war will be different. There is no universal definition of "just," after all. It's completely objective. Has there ever truly been a just war?

War is a strange and complicated thing. I agree that as long as humans are around, wars will continue to be fought. It's a sad truth. It's unfortunate that realism is the dominant international theory (and has been for hundreds of years), and countries are unable to think of themselves as a global collective.
 
I'll add to what I said, in light of a recent discussion.

As long as aggressors and violence remain, war remains a possibility. Sometimes, negotiations do not work out, and the only realistic option remains war. Further diplomacy takes time, trust, and most of all, a willingness to cooperate. War may act as a catalyst for such. Ultimately, a war will end, and diplomatic ends will be pursued. During peace, which itself is born and shaped from war, progress can be made. Peace is the ultimate goal of war, even. Ironic, huh?

It is true that mass ignorance and deception is most often a prerequisite for war in certain circumstances, especially for the aggressor. Would Hitler have been able to invade Poland or Czechoslovakia if he did not have the support of a large portion of the German population? Would Islamic extremists have attacked the Twin Towers if they were neither radical nor so hateful of the west?

In other cases, cultures may clash in the fight for dominance of the world. The war has always been engaged in this struggle for power and control. The leaders might not be ignorant, far from it. They know exactly what is at stake, and war decides who is the victor. The ignorant, uneducated masses are simply pawns in the grand scheme of things.

War is ugly, but its offspring is peace. Peace is beautiful, but it ends in war.
 
Violence, although a horrible means, is sometimes the only ends to a moral evil.
 
In regards to international law, there are three legitimate casus belli.
They being, self-defence ie when your country is invaded.
Mutual self defense treaty. Like when Germany invaded France in 1914, Russia decleared war on Germany.
The final one is fighting in a UN approved war, eg Korea.
 
General Beatrix said:
This is something we were talking about in RE class today, and it seems to be a very interesting topic, I'm quite annoyed we didn't have more discussion on it, as everyones different opinions on it were interesting.

Can there ever be such a thing as a Just War?

This is what we got told in RE -

Principles of the Just War
  • A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  • A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  • A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  • A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  • The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  • The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  • The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
So, what is your opinion?

I'll add more later.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes I remember most of these.

Under those guidelines no War is ever just simply because people by nature will dispute what does and doesn't justify a war.

As such, I do think war is neccesary when negociations go sour, and purely for self-defense. Revenge is not a cause for war, but to protect your nation from an enemy thats threatening the world and you(WWII) for example while not a "just-war" under those guidelines I think it was neccesary. The casualties were great, but ultimately peace was achieved.

- Kuja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top