The belief that a war can exist which is completely just, has been around for many centuries. Philosophers have argued since the time of Cicero on how actions can be justified, and have written many papers on the subject. Although many people from different backgrounds and religions have disagreed on the topic, it is somewhat agreed that four factors of a war must be just, for the war itself to be considered just:
1. The reasons to go to war must be just
2. The actions undertaken by members of a nation to fight must be just 3. The method of finishing the war must be just
4. The treatment of a losing nation after a war by the winning nation must be just
When trying to define the word ‘just’, one finds that it is impossible to give exactly the same examples as another person. It is completely a matter of opinion which changes for every person. The closest the world has come to agreeing to a definition of ‘just’ was in August 1949, when the Geneva Conventions were signed, but there are still loopholes where personal opinion can effect the application of the rules. The Geneva conventions were signed by hundreds of world leaders, but only outlines the way a country can fight justly (second point, see above).
Only when all four of these points can be justified, is a war truly just. Therefore, we must individually look at the other three points, and the opinions that people have on them worldwide.
1) The Reason to go to war must be just
- Talk about Jihadism and the Crusades, and that religion gives a good enough reason for some people to fight justly (against the infidels/pagans)
- Talk about retaliation and if it is just. Use this paper for a start:
-This is about comparative justice, wiki that.
- Talk about preventing other countries from hurt. Peace treaties or not, is it their business? From saving another country, what does one...