Origins. The concepts of a fair war were developed by classical Greek and Roman philosophers such as Plato and Cicero, and were supplemented by Christian theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. During the Middle Ages, debates continued among Jewish scholars known as Maimonists and Calistocrats.
In 1821, the British Parliament passed the first International Law Commission (ILC) to deal with issues before it. This was followed by similar bodies in other countries. In 1977, the United Nations established its own International Law Commission to deal with all matters within its competence. Although not specifically designated as a "just war" body, this commission has dealt extensively with the topic over the years.
The modern concept of a just war is based on three main principles: intentionality, discrimination, and proportionality. Intentionality refers to the need for war to be declared by a competent authority. Declaration does not necessarily mean open conflict; rather, it can also be expressed through treaties, agreements, or consults. Discriminativeness requires that combatants be chosen deliberately by their opponents. Proportionality demands that the desired outcome is truly necessary and appropriate, considering the consequences.
These principles have been used by many writers to define what may be considered a just war.
Augustine's version was updated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who established three requirements for a good war: the war had to be undertaken by a legitimate authority, for a just cause, and with the appropriate motives. These conditions were not always satisfied in practice, but they are believed by many people to be necessary for a war to be justified.
The first requirement is that there has to be a legitimate authority behind the war. This means that the war must be ordered by a person or group that has the legal right to do so. It can be anyone who is able to make decisions for their country, such as a government or military leader. However, since only humans can be considered free will beings, the second requirement is that the person or group must also have the will to fight against evil. They cannot order a war if they are doing something else at the same time.
The third requirement is that the motive for the war needs to be one of justice. This means that the people ordering the war should believe it will help their country by fighting against an enemy. They cannot use security or economic reasons as their main motivation for going to war.
These days, these same principles are used to determine whether or not a new war is justified. If there is a legitimate authority behind the war, they need to believe that the cause is just to begin with.
The idea of just war might lead one to believe that because a conflict is just, it is truly a good thing. However, current war theory is based on the assumption that conflict is always terrible. A righteous war is allowed because it is a lesser evil, yet it is still wicked. This shows that true peace can never be achieved through violence.
The best we can do is try our best to live at peace with others and not take part in any wars. Also, one should not resort to violence when trying to stop another country from going to war either; negotiations and protests are much better choices. Finally, one should remember that God hates all forms of violence and would not want us to use it as an excuse to start some ourselves.
Purpose. The goal of Just War Theory is to give a blueprint for governments to follow in possible conflict scenarios. It solely applies to states and does not apply to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).
The four criteria that must be met before a war can be considered just are: 1 Right Cause. The war must be done in order to avoid greater harm; 2 Lasting Resolution. The war must be one that will actually bring about its intended result; 3 Proportional Response. The damage inflicted by the war must be proportional to the damage suffered by the enemy; 4 Just Conduct. The war must be conducted in accordance with the principles of justice.
Just War Theory has two main schools of thought: pacifism, which believes that no just cause for war exists, even if others may believe otherwise; and realism, which believes that there are often times when wars must be fought even if no just cause exists.
In practice, most people fall somewhere between these two extremes. They may agree that there are some situations where war is clearly not justified, such as when fighting would not serve the public good. However, they may also believe that in other situations, such as when a country's government is acting unjustly, then a war could be justified regardless of the views of others.
The theory aims to answer two questions: first, what are the requirements for going to war? Second, what consequences should there be for acting unjustly?
The just war theory was developed over time by many philosophers, theologians, and legal scholars. However, it mainly stems from three authors: Pope John Paul II, Catholic bishop Jean-Paul Monaghan, and Protestant pastor William Cavanaugh.
Monaghan was one of the first modern philosophers to study and develop the concept. He believed that only a just cause could justify going to war and that any harm caused as a result of such a war would be justified if the cause was just. Additionally, he said that the best way to prevent wars being started without justification is through good diplomacy.
John Paul II took this idea further by saying that only a government that has been elected by its people can start a war (it cannot be done by a dictator or leader), and that countries need to ask themselves if their own actions are just before deciding to go to war.
A battle is only just if it is both justified and carried out correctly. Some noble-cause battles have been considered unjust because of the manner in which they were waged. For example, some critics claim that the First World War was not justified because it was not fought to protect freedom but rather to settle economic disputes between Britain and Germany. Such arguments are called "just-war theory" because they attempt to determine whether a particular conflict is just by comparing it to accepted standards for justice.
In general, people think that wars should be fought only to defend ourselves or our allies, or to prevent an aggressor from attacking us or our allies. Any other reason would make the conflict an aggression and therefore unlawful. However, many people believe that certain kinds of battles could be considered just even though they are fought for otherwise unacceptable reasons. For example, some historians have said that the Second World War was not justified because Japan's attack on America's colonies was an act of aggression rather than self-defense. However, others argue that because the victims were able to fight back effectively, the battle was indeed justified as a war against tyranny.
In conclusion, there are times when nations can fight without committing an offense; however, we should never engage in combat unless we have a good reason for doing so.