Just War

(redirected from The Just War tradition)

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).

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Professor Valerie Morkevicius offers a provocative thesis in her new book: the just war tradition has more in common historically with realist views of international relations than with the idealist views that characterize contemporary just war thought.
A scholar of war and religion, Perabo examines Russian Orthodox responses to and characterizations of the Russo-Japanese War, in order to demonstrate the limitations of the just war tradition in encompassing Christian conversations about war.
First, the New Testament does not require jettisoning the just war tradition that arose in post-biblical times.
As a scholar and teacher of the Just War Tradition and military ethics, I found several points worth highlighting.
The central claim is that political and technological changes since the end of the Cold War have cast war in a new light and that various features of the Just War tradition may need to be reconsidered for the changed international and military environment.
Larry May is a professor of law, philosophy and political science at Vanderbilt University who writes about international criminal law and the just war tradition. Together they persuasively articulate "a normative account that suggests how and when necessity should be deployed as a powerful concept to justify and excuse State action in various domains" (p 273).
presents a proper Christian rendering of the just war tradition.
Chapters include a history of peace movements; causes of war; the biology of war; the just war tradition; the representation of war; the economics of war; and the end of war.
Unlike many discussants of the Just War tradition, Cavanagh talks about the just termination of conflict or just post bellum.
This article explores Quinlan's role as a significant thinker on nuclear strategy and international security by examining his arguments for the possession and potential use of nuclear weapons within the just war tradition. Some critics contend that Quinlan entered the civic contest primarily to uphold British defense policy by arguing that its nuclear weapons provided a "second centre of decision" (in addition to the United States) that deterred the Soviet leadership from believing it could risk a nuclear attack on Europe without prompting U.S.
Its influence is apparent in Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, wherein he declares that his interest lies "not with the making of the moral world but with its present character." (6) This formulation--latterly taken up by scholars associated with the analytical or Anglo-American approach to the ethics of war--conveys both a reluctance to delve into the historical development of the just war tradition and a preference for a more analytical treatment of the principles that it bestows upon us today.
A number of notable contributions illustrate that the idea of a religious war was largely unacceptable to contemporaries looking at the conflict through the just war tradition. Here we again see the blurring of secular and spiritual concerns.