Just War Theory

Words: 719
Pages: 3

The use of force in war is acceptable only when the benefits outway the potential suffering and damage of the force. This is governed by the fact that war without a beneficial result is simply unnecessary violence. The just war theory contains standards for causing war (jus ad bellum), and appropriate conduct during a war (jus in bello). Jus ad bellum includes standards that should be met before starting a war to ensure morality. This includes the fact that the war must be fought to bring about peace or restore justice, as stated on page 237 of International Politics on the World Stage. It is only moral to start a war to bring about peace and justice, not simply because one side feels like attacking another. Random wars started only for domination or other causes that are not justice or peace likely involve unacceptable force since the force has no purpose. Jus in bello includes the standard of proportionality, also discussed on page 237 of International Politics on the World Stage. It says that “Proportionality means that the amount of force used must be proportional to …show more content…
The article bring up the paradox of whether jus in bello and jus ad bellum can be separate. “If unjust combatants fight without violating the rules governing the conduct of war, all their individual acts of war are permissible,” says the article, “Yet these individual acts together constitute a war that is unjust and therefore impermissible. But how can a series of individually permissible acts be collectively impermissible?” Taking all the other evidence into account, one answer is that although the combatants may be followed the rules of just conduct, the force they are exerting will not be overshadowed by any good, and is therefore unjust. The only justifiable reason to use force is if the force will be outweighed by the benefits, and any war that involves violence without stronger benefits is