Just War

(redirected from Ethics of war)
Also found in: Wikipedia.

Just War

As widely used, a term referring to any war between states that meets generally accepted international criteria of justification. The concept of just war invokes both political and theological ideology, as it promotes a peaceful resolution and coexistence between states, and the use of force or the invocation of armed conflict only under certain circumstances. It is not the same as, but is often confused with, the term jihad or "holy war," a Muslim religious justification for war.

The principle of a just war emerged early in the development of scholarly writings on International Law. Under this view, a just war was a means of national Self-Help whereby a state attempted to enforce rights actually or allegedly based on international law. State practice from the eighteenth to the early part of the twentieth century generally rejected this distinction, however, as war became a legally permissible national policy to alter the existing rights of states, irrespective of the actual merits of the controversy.

Following World War I, diplomatic negotiations resulted in the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, more commonly known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, signed in 1928. The signatory nations renounced war as a means to resolve international disputes promising instead to use peaceful methods.

The aims of the Kellogg-Briand Pact were adopted in the Charter of the United Nations in 1945. Under the charter, the use or threat of force as an instrument of national policy was condemned, but nations were permitted to use force in individual or collective Self-Defense against an aggressor. The General Assembly of the United Nations has further defined aggression as armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state, regardless of the reasons for the use of force. The Security Council is empowered to review the use of force, and therefore, to determine whether the relevant circumstances justify branding one nation as the aggressor and in violation of charter obligations. Under the modern view, a just war is one waged consistent with the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Charter of the United Nations.

What has complicated the concept of just war in contemporary international relations is the emergence of "asymmetrical warfare." The term refers to conflict with parties or entities (such as international terrorist groups) who are neither officially connected with, nor owe allegiance to, any particular public authority or state. While these individuals or groups may be dependent upon clandestine assistance from states willing to help them secretly, they are not publicly responsible to them. Since contemplation of just war requires public authorities to act in their official capacities for the common good, that objective is frustrated by the lack of a discernible, clearly identifiable enemy state against which to act. As a result, the international community has attempted to unite in a common effort to declare war against Terrorism in general as "just."

Further readings

Johnson, James Turner. 2002. "Jihad and Just War." First Things 124.

Novak, Michael. 2003. "Asymmetrical Warfare & Just War." National Review online. Text of public lecture given on February 10 in Rome. Available online at <www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp> (accessed August 13, 2003).

References in periodicals archive ?
While Fisher's insistence that a reinterpretation of the just war tradition must include aspects of the recently resurgent virtue ethics approach is refreshing, his rejection of key tenets of Aristotle's views--from the doctrine of the mean to the unity of the virtues--led Fisher to adopt modern consequentialist doctrines that sour what promised to be a thoroughly Aristotelian approach to the ethics of war.
TEHRAN (FNA)- The 70th anniversary of the US atomic strikes on Japan has prompted reflection, commemoration, and debate about the ethics of war and the world's nuclear arsenal.
In English, students looked at the persuasive techniques used in propaganda posters and in RE students considered the ethics of war.
Professor Coker has been preoccupied with the ethos of the warrior and the ethics of war in several previous books.
As we approach our second century, the Council will remain the home for energetic, rigorous, and creative thinking on the ethics of war.
Editor's Note As we approach our second century, Carnegie Council will remain the home for energetic, rigorous, and creative thinking on the ethics of war.
During my senior year of college, I was excited to take the course "Islamic Ethics of War and Peace" as part of my degree in peace studies at the University of Notre Dame.
of Ottawa, Canada), this reader explores various issues of the ethics of war, guided thematically by the conflict between two broad moral frameworks for approaching the question: consequentialism (or utilitarianism), which focuses on the consequences that actions produce, and absolutism (or deontology), the view that some actions are wrong, absolutely, because they violate the fundamental rights of individuals.
conservative impasse among Catholic thinkers on the ethics of war today.
Recent discussions of the ethics of war and peace have sought to move beyond reflection on just war theory toward a more holistic approach; attention to nonviolence, transitional justice, and jus post bellum represent extensions of that conversation.
32) Question 1, canon 4, [section] 1, citing Augustine ; Ethics of War, 112.
The ethics of war conduct and moral codes such as the Geneva Convention are quintessential to preserving the minimum dignity for mankind.