Just War Theory

[Fortunecookie]

Dear Christian Forums,

I have a question about Just War Theory. Often the following are hailed as conditions for a just war:

Just cause
All aggression is condemned; only defensive war is legitimate.

Just intention
The only legitimate intention is to secure a just peace for all involved. Neither revenge nor conquest nor economic gain nor ideological supremacy are justified.

Last resort
War may only be entered upon when all negotiations and compromise have been tried and failed.

Formal declaration
Since the use of military force is the prerogative of governments, not of private individuals, a state of war must be officially declared by the highest authorities.

Limited objectives
If the purpose is peace, then unconditional surrender or the destruction of a nation's economic or political institutions is an unwarranted objective.

Proportionate means
The weaponry and the force used should be limited to what is needed to repel the aggression and deter future attacks, that is to say to secure a just peace. Total or unlimited war is ruled out.

Noncombatant immunity
Since war is an official act of government, only those who are officially agents of government may fight, and individuals not actively contributing to the conflict (including POW's and casualties as well as civilian nonparticipants) should be immune from attack.

I have a few questions regarding them.


''All aggression is condemned; only defensive war is legitimate.''
What is aggressive and what is defensive? Must you personally be attacked in order to be a defensive actor? What if you see injustice and decide to join an effort in order to stop that unjust? Would it be wrong for states or non state actors to for instance join an effort against Nazi Germany even though Nazi Germany does not constitute a threat against them personally? Would it be wrong to support or join opposition to immoral regimes even though they do not constitute a threat to you yourself?

''Since the use of military force is the prerogative of governments, not of private individuals, a state of war must be officially declared by the highest authorities.''
Why are states only recognized as legitimative authorities? Often nations are born out of non state actors such as guerillas. These guerillas later become states. I do not see why states need to be the only form of legitimate authority. What about non state people collaborating to overthrow their own government because it is very bad. These individuals if successful become the state itself. What about people collaborating from other countries to overthrow other governments. Would it be wrong for South Korean or individuals from other nationalities to go to North Korea and organize a resistance movement wherein they free the political prisoners from prison camps for example? I just disagree with the fact that only states hold the right to violence.


Also when does violence become a war?

Thank you,

Fortunecookie

 

[Autumnleaf]

Dear Christian Forums,

I have a question about Just War Theory. Often the following are hailed as conditions for a just war:



I have a few questions regarding them.


''All aggression is condemned; only defensive war is legitimate.''
What is aggressive and what is defensive? Must you personally be attacked in order to be a defensive actor? What if you see injustice and decide to join an effort in order to stop that unjust? Would it be wrong for states or non state actors to for instance join an effort against Nazi Germany even though Nazi Germany does not constitute a threat against them personally? Would it be wrong to support or join opposition to immoral regimes even though they do not constitute a threat to you yourself?

''Since the use of military force is the prerogative of governments, not of private individuals, a state of war must be officially declared by the highest authorities.''
Why are states only recognized as legitimative authorities? Often nations are born out of non state actors such as guerillas. These guerillas later become states. I do not see why states need to be the only form of legitimate authority. What about non state people collaborating to overthrow their own government because it is very bad. These individuals if successful become the state itself. What about people collaborating from other countries to overthrow other governments. Would it be wrong for South Korean or individuals from other nationalities to go to North Korea and organize a resistance movement wherein they free the political prisoners from prison camps for example? I just disagree with the fact that only states hold the right to violence.


Also when does violence become a war?

Thank you,

Fortunecookie

You want to know about war? Forget theories and other psychophilosophical babble and read what the man says about it. The man who wrote it is a legendary US Marine who was propositioned by business men to lead a military coup against the US government. He declined.

War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

 

[grandvizier1006]

I've always wondered about this topic myself. The whole just war thing first sounded like a "justification to go to war". The whole idea comes from medieval theologians, not the Bible. wise men, certainly, but nowadays states do not cause violence. Instead we have terrorist groups. And furthermore, even if there is a just cause to wage war and defeat an enemy, you can't really guarantee that no civilians will be killed, or that no resources will be exploited.

I think the solution is to just look at that thing as a guideline and not a rule for waging war. It's not from God, so it doesn't need to be treated as such.