If a war is to stop Terrorism against Our Country it is always justified. There was a convention to define the rules of battle.
Just War Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy History of just war theory
"
The presumption of the theory, in keeping with Augustine’s stance, is
against war. The theory falls in two main parts:
jus ad bellum, which is concerned with the ethics of declaring war; and
jus in bello, concerned with conduct during war. (Today, ethicists have increasingly been talking of
jus post bellum, concerned with the conduct of the victorious party after the war.) The criteria can be summarised as follows:
Jus ad bellum
1. Wars must be fought only on
legitimate authority. This criterion aimed to limit conflicts by small-scale barons, captains and princelings, and is often treated as the
sine qua non of Just War Theory.
[4]
2. The cause must be
just. The war must be fought, for example, in order to resist aggression, protect the innocent, or to support the rights of some oppressed group. There must be significant reasons which are weighty enough to overthrow the
prima facie duty that we should not kill or injure others.
3. The war must have
right intention. It must advance the good and avoid evil, have clear aims and be open to negotiation; it must not be for revenge or for the sake of killing and there should be no ulterior motive. It must be waged without love of violence, or cruelty; and regret or remorse should be the proper attitude. This is shaped by the pursuit of a just cause. Since peace should be the object of war, killing is a means to that end. This condition also holds for
jus in bello.
4. It must be a
last resort, all other attempts having failed or being unavailable.
5. There must be a
reasonable hope of justice, or a reasonable chance of success, in order to prevent pointless wars. If there is no such hope, then it would not just be imprudent, but there would be no good grounds to override the
prima facie obligation to not harm others if none of the just ends can be realised, and thus going to war would be immoral.
[5]
Jus in bello
6. There must be
discrimination. Non-combatants should not be directly or intentionally attacked, although it is recognised that there may be accidental casualties.
7. There must be
proportion; that is, there must be a balance between the good achieved versus the harm done. This condition takes into account the effects on all human beings, not just those on one side, and it is the effects on humans rather than other physical damage which have priority. This condition also applies to
jus ad bellum, in order to prevent going to war over minor disputes.
A just war, then, is
not a war in which both sides act justly; in fact there cannot be such a war. For a war to be just, that war must be waged in order to right a wrong or to prevent an imminent injustice."
In recent weeks, questions over the legitimacy of possible military intervention in Syria have given rise to a lot of discussion about Just War Theory. What does Just War Theory actually say?
www.thinkingfaith.org
