EXPOSITION The justification of war — both in terms of jus in bello and jus ad bellum — is a difficult and complex task. This difficulty is increased immensely when trying to apply just war principles to terrorism, a complicated mix of typical and unconventional tactics that can be performed by both established and state governments. In the essay, I will critically address the discussion of terrorism by Michael Walzer in chapter 12 of “Just and Unjust Wars” (1977) and advocate for the justification of revolutionary terrorism. Walzer’s judgment of terrorism oversimplifies and neglects important complexities that must be considered in the ethical analysis of terrorism.…
While many scholars attempted to theorize war in human history, only few were credited for constructing consistent theories on which people could base and further their understanding of war and warfare. Those include Greek Thucydides, Chinese Sun Tzu, and Indian Kautilya all three from 3-4th century BC; Prussian Carl von Clausewitz and Swiss Antoine-Henry Jomini both from 19th century. All of those prominent theorist had a lot to offer and therefore had great influence on our thinking in war, warfare, and strategy. However, Clausewitz’s theory offers more insight if one carefully and purposely studied the “paradoxical trinity” identified in his…
The bush doctrine is more prevention than preemption. His speech was more about prevention. He made a statement that we must prevent terrorisms and regimes weapons from threatening the United States and the world. He claimed that we can’t sit back and wait for them to attack us again. We must not wait and give them the chance to take us down. We should make them fear us. He was determined to prevent another terrorist attack to the United States. Bush considers the 9/11 attack as a potential threat. It was capable of happening again. He wanted to eliminate a possible future threat. Based on his interpretations,…
A review of chapter 2, 'The Crime of War' in Michael Walzer's book, "Just and Unjust Wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations." Allen Lane 1997.…
There have been many wars come this day and age. They included much bloodshed and death. One of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world was the Battle of Stalingrad. This war was the turning point for the Allies in their fight against Germany, but with nearly 2 Million Civilian/Military Casualties, was this battle justified? The Just War theory provides a basis as to whether a war was just or evil and this will be applied to the Battle of Stalingrad to perceive whether or not this battle meets with the 3 different Jus in Bello / Jus Ad Bellum criteria necessary to be a just war.…
Just cause: In my opinion, the United States had no right to go into Iraq based solely on a theory that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. According to the Just War Theory, war is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger," to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.…
One frequently used example of just war is when U.S entering World War II. However, the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan definitely violated the principle of jus in bello that “noncombatants should not be intentionally targeted (Boss, 576).” Nuclear weapon is viewed as “the ultimate evil” because it could permanently destroy the ecosystem in a large area. “Not only are they destructive in magnitude but in horror as well (Granoff, 601).” Thus, many people are working at stop using any nuclear weapon. Those efforts currently met two problems. The first problem is the potential threat from the countries that already developed nuclear weapons. As long as a group of people have nuclear weapons, the attempt of some others to develop nuclear weapons will still go on. The second problem is what kind of weapon is considered “not a proportional response to the injury being redressed”? Should we allow the predator drone to vaporize people or the biological weapon that could spread diseases? Where is the limitation of the “humanity” for a war? Is killing one person to protect ten other persons a just behavior? What about killing one person to protect a thousand persons? Loss of lives in wars could hardly be just for any…
The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the nature of humans, force is a necessary action to be used to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, since the Second World War, people have turned their attention to Just War again establishing rules that can serve as guidelines to a just war- the Hague and Geneva conventions.…
Military theory spans centuries of conflict all across the world. As such, military theorists have written in a variety of military climates, varying from the absence of gun powder to the presence of nuclear weapons. However, some military theories are transcendent. Some elements of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz are eternally wise. While their similarities may become universal truths, their differences are equally worthy of study because, it is in the differences where choices are made. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz agreed that war is chaos, military action is a tool for diplomatic goals and, as such, the results of warfare are not final. Their differences lie in how they advocate for waging war. The style and preparations for war contrast. This is where…
The Just War theory tries to judge whether it is ‘just’ to go to war and how the war should be fought. It tries to reconcile three things; taking a human life is seriously wrong. That states have a duty to defend their citizens and defend justice and thirdly protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values.…
Compared to the early 20th century, the wars of today are vastly different. The reasons for fighting, the styles of fighting, and who is fighting are all very different. However, in an age that is far removed from the past, a few things regarding war have remained the unchanged. One of the ideas that has remained unchanged in a time that is every changing, are the rules of war, as described by Michael Walzer in his book, Just and Unjust Wars. Naturally, in a time where so much has changed, there are starting to be a few objections to Walzer’s claims on the rules of war. Even though the wars of today are far different from those of the past, the moral equality of soldiers remains the same regardless if they are associated with being on an unjust…
“The power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully” (Evans Hughes, Charles). In 1846 the United States and Mexico went to war against each other over disagreements mainly regarding the area of Texas. Mexico claimed the war was to protect its territorial integrity while the United States claimed the war was an act of self defense. In the Just War Theory actions and intentions of warring nations are upheld to a standard of justification. This Theory attempts to provide parameters of acceptable behavior when declaring and waging war. It also provides examples of offenses often committed in war. When examining the events leading up to the war, it becomes clear that the United States was acting in accordance with the principles put forth in the Just War Theory. The participation of the United States in the Mexican-American war was just because war was declared as a last resort, the war was fought on behalf of a just cause, and the war was declared by a legitimate authority.…
This article “Just War Tradition” also refer to as Just War Theory is related to war because it explains the principles and morals behind on taking war as a last resort solution only if the options don't meet the requirements. Also, in the case of war was to happen they discussed on when and where warfare is appropriate to be taken place. Including that, the Just War Tradition was originally discovered by the Christians and their based it on their philosophy. Then theorist Saint Augustine made who made other factions to their philosophy for a better outcome. As years passed another theorist named Michael Walzer stepped in but this time around modernize the principles. The government must apply two principles the first principle is Jus ad Bellum…
I have puzzled over this. How can a war be truly just when it involves the daily killing of civilians, when it causes hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to leave their homes to escape the bombs, when it may not find those who planned the September 11 attacks, and when it will multiply the ranks of people who are angry enough at this country to become terrorists themselves?…
What justifies war? Who justifies it? Why as human beings do we feel the need to fight, harm, and kill others to achieve certain goals? These questions have been pertinent to our society since the beginning of time and continue to challenge us to better understand the human psyche, and code of ethics that give Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines credence to kill in the name of the United States of America. These ethics of war lay the foundation for that code of understanding and righteousness for when it is justifiable to pull the trigger and take the life of another, or commit an act of war.…
