Just And Unjust War Analysis

A large sector of just war theory references several moral and legal implications that must be evaluated prior to engaging in attack. The legalist paradigm, as expressed by theorist and author Michael Walzer in his book Just and Unjust Wars1, evaluates the conditions that constitute just war, and elaborates on several of the key circumstances that are required to impose just war on others. Despite its strengths, this paradigm is often evaluated as being a “strawman”, and provides only a foundation for which several other nuanced views can expand on. One fundamental idea expressed in his claims though, is the idea that “nothing but aggression can justify war”1. Through this, Walzer establishes the only moral precedent for which a counter-attack
The conflict between France and Germany over Alsace-Lorraine address many of the same circumstances surrounding the territorial integrity of a land. In a similar context, the Germans believed they had rights to sovereignty as a result of historical precedent (Argentina’s claim), while France was convinced of its rights due to over 200 years of its control, the effective government it had established within the territory, and the allegiance of the inhabitants to France (Britain’s argument). Walzer, in his examination of this case adopts the stance that the “lands follow the people”. He argues that the case of sovereignty rests in the desires of the people and asserts the claim that the “territorial integrity is a function of national existence” and it is the “coming together of a people that establishes the integrity of a territory”. Taking from Walzer’s argument, a similar stance can be adopted in the case of the Falklands War. Popular sentiment surrounding the opinion of the islanders favored British control and maintaining links with their European ancestors. Despite concessions made by the British government in the form of a lease back agreement that would allow Britain prescriptive rights over the island and recognize Argentinean sovereignty, the plans ultimately ended up falling through because of lack of support from the island’s inhabitants. As Walzer expressed “individual rights… underlie the most important judgments that we make about war”1 and in ignoring their rights to self-determination, there was a direct violation by Argentina of the rights of the islanders. There actions, which infringed on the self-determined boundaries of the Falklands territorial integrity, can thus be considered