' ( or , ), literally "right to war" in Latin, refers to "the conditions under which States may resort to war or to the use of armed force in general". In other words, it means the law governing the right to use force. Jus ad bellum is one pillar of just war theory. Just war theory states that war should only be condoned under 'just' conditions. Jus ad bellum simply limits the causes for which war can be considered justifiable. Therefore they put their faith in the gods alongside the pharaoh to have just reasons to engage in war. These include self defense, defense of their allies and against evil powers. Later came philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas with his Summa Theologiae. Aquinas lists criteria from the Christian perspective that were intended to protect civilians and guarantee that wars were not just fought for the interest of private parties.

Renaissance period

Francisco de Vitoria and Hugo Grotius grew the idea of just war theory into international law. Vitoria's main argument presented that war should serve the common good. States should not be going to war for revenge or power. Hugo Grotius was another key thinker within the evolution of just war. He has been named father of international law. In his work, On the Law of War and Peace, Grotius emphasized the need for proportionality and accountability.

Modern international law

Today organizations such as League of Nations and United Nations stand to prevent unjust wars. The League of Nations was one of the first international organizations established with a primary goal of maintaining world peace. It was established in 1920 after World War I in order to protect the world from dealing with such tragedies again. Unfortunately, it was entirely unsuccessful in that mission owing to the occurrence of World War II. Thus the United Nations was born. In the UN Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4 states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Article 51 of the UN Charter later clarifies: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." These put the idea of jus ad bellum into writing by requiring states to agree that they will only use armed force in self-defense, or with the approval of the United Nations Security Council.

Since the 1950s, declarations of jus ad bellum have dropped dramatically. In "Why States No Longer Declare War" Tanisha Fazal notes the drop in formal declarations of war since the 1950s.

Core principles

Just cause

According to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. This state of peace should be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed had the war not occurred. Wars cannot be fought simply to annex property or install a regime change. Current doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" or preemptive strikes, sometimes associated with the Bush Doctrine, have challenged concepts of right intention or just cause. Right cause includes humanitarian intervention, particularly when actions "shock the conscience". The responsibility to protect covers more in depth the nature of humanitarian intervention.

Legitimate authority

The principle of right authority suggests that a war is just only if waged by a legitimate authority. Such authority is rooted in the notion of state sovereignty. In his Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas notes that to be a just war, war has not only to be declared publicly, but also must be declared by the proper authority. A soldier is treated as a prisoner of war and not a criminal because they are operating under the proper authority of the state and cannot be held individually responsible for actions committed under the orders of their military leadership.

Probability of success

According to this principle, there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable. This criterion is to avoid invasion for invasion's sake and links to the proportionality criteria. One cannot invade if there is no chance of actually winning. However, wars are fought with imperfect knowledge, so one must simply be able to make a logical case that one can win; there is no way to know this in advance. These criteria move the conversation from moral and theoretical grounds to practical grounds. Essentially, this is meant to gather coalition building and win approval of other state actors.

Last resort

The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities. Further, in regard to the amount of harm—proportionally—the principle of last resort would support using small intervention forces first and then escalating rather than starting a war with massive force such as carpet bombing or nuclear warfare.

Proportionality

The principle of Proportionality is the idea of maintaining a balance. The desire to go to war must balance with the destruction or loss of life that the war will cause. If one is more than the other that is a breach in proportionality. There should never be extreme damage and loss of life for a cause that isn't equally productive.

See also

  • Jus in bello
  • Casus belli
  • Jus post bellum
  • Si vis pacem, para bellum
  • Just war theory
  • List of Latin phrases
  • Mandatory war

References

Further reading

  • War & Law
  • Crimes of War
  • Characteristics Of Intractable Conflicts
  • Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Rutgers: Book/Reading List
  • Essay hosted at USAF site
  • Joseph R. Cerami, James F. Holcomb (Editors). U.S. Army War College guide to strategy. Strategic Studies Institute, 2001. ., pp. 19–30. Chapter 3. Ethical issues in War, An overview, Cook, Martin L.
  • Stanford encyclopedia entry for war
  • Brander, Kenneth Rabbi. "Is All Fair in Love & War?" Just & Unjust Wars through the prism of Jewish and Secular Thought", part 1 and part 2