War is always evil, but some thinkers have maintained that under limited circumstances it may be the lesser evil. From Cicero to St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas to Hugo Grotius, philosophers and theologians have proposed numerous criteria for determining if a war is just. According to contemporary Just War Theory, a war is just only if it meets the six conditions presented in the following debate. The theory has been formulated to prevent war, not justify it. A nation must satisfy all six conditions or the war is not just. The theory is designed to show states the rigorous criteria they must meet to justify the use of violence and prompt them to find other ways of solving conflicts.
PROS
A Just War satisfies six criteria:
1. Wars are just if the cause is just. Nations should be allowed to defend themselves from aggression, just as individuals are permitted to defend themselves against violence.
CONS
The criteria for just war present several problems: 1. Just cause is an elastic concept. Who determines what is “aggression”? Could violating a border or impos- ing economic sanctions be aggression? And if a state is unable to defend itself, can another state intervene mili- tarily on its behalf? These borderline cases make invok- ing this criterion very problematic.
2. The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority. This prevents inappropriate, terrorist-style chaos, and ensures that other rules of war will be observed. For example, when states declare war, they generally follow specific legislative procedures; a guar- anteed respect for such procedures is likely to ensure that the nation will respect other rules of war, such as the Geneva Convention.
3. The intentions behind the war must be good. States have the right to use war to restore a just peace, to help the innocent, or to right a wrong. For example, the US and NATO where justified in using force in Bosnia. Waging war was far more ethical than standing by and permitting genocide.
4. War must be a last resort. The state is justified in using war after it has tried all nonviolent alternatives. Sometimes peaceful measures—diplomacy, economic sanctions, international pressure, or condemnation from other nations—simply do not work.
5. The war must have a reasonable chance of success. War always involves a loss of life, but expending life with no possibility of achieving a goal is unacceptable. Thus, if a fighting force cannot achieve its goal, however just, it should not proceed. Charging an enemy’s cannons on horseback or throwing troops at a pointless occupation are clearly not just actions.
6. The goal of the war should be proportional to the offense and the benefits proportional to the costs. For example, when an attacker violates a nation’s border, a proportionate response might extend to restoring the border, not sacking the attacker’s capital. A war must prevent more suffering than it causes.
2. Many nations wage war without an official declara- tion. Moreover, who is to decide which entities can and cannot issue calls to arms? Legitimate authorities have sanctioned some of the most horrific wars in history.
3. Reality is a lot murkier than theory. How are we to determine a state’s intent? Sometimes good intentions are bound up with bad. And who is to determine if a peace is just or a wrong has been committed? The nation initiating the war will use its own values to justify its intentions, and these values may be at odds with those of other the party in the conflict. Furthermore, the best way to protect innocent lives is by peaceful means, not by endangering them further through armed conflict. 4. Sometimes going to war before all alternatives are exhausted is the most moral action. For example, a nation might decide to go to war if it determines that waiting would enable the enemy to increase its strength and to do much more damage than an early war would have inflicted. Waiting might allow an invading state to entrench itself so that far greater force would be neces- sary to remove it at a later date.
5. Sometimes it is morally imperative to fight against over- whelming odds, as resistance fighters did in World War II. Also, this condition may give large nations free rein to bully small ones because they could not win a war. It also may cause a country to surrender in a war it might actu- ally win. Weak countries have won wars against powerful ones—look at the American Revolution.
6. We have seen that a proportional response frequently doesn’t work. Suicide bombers continue to blow up victims in the Middle East despite the response. Why should a nation tolerate continued aggression for the sake of proportionality? And if a nation knows it is likely to be attacked, why should it wait to disarm the aggres- sor? Is not preemptive action justified to prevent the loss of innocent life?
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House believes that war is sometimes justified. This House believes swords are as necessary as ploughshares. This House believes that justifying war is unjustifiable.
1|The Debatabase Book
Web Links:
• BBC Religion and Ethics. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/index.shtml> Excellent discussion of Just War Theory. • The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s History of Philosophy. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm> Summary of Just
War Theory with review of the literature.
• Just War: The Stanford University Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/> Philosophical analysis of war in general and just war in particular.
• JustWarTheory.com. <http://www.justwartheory.com/> Overview of the just war theory with links to other sources for more in-depth treatment.
Further Reading:
Johnson, James Turner. Morality and Contemporary Warfare. Yale University Press, 2001.
Temes, Peter S. The Just War: An American Reflection on the Morality of War in Our Time. Ivan R. Dee, 2003. Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books, 2006