Table of ContentsSummaryJust War Theory: Literature ReviewIntroductionThe Jus ad BellumJus In BelloJus Post BellumConclusionReferenceSummaryThe aim of this study is to explore some of the aspects that influence the state and non-state actors using just theory War Theory in wars or conflicts. The analysis seeks to answer the research question: how does the application of just war theory affect current wars based on the current environment and the complexity of current conflicts. Additionally, analyze the limitations of wars and how just war theory applies to humanitarian efforts during and after wars. The goal is to examine the models and principles of just war theory and determine whether this theory is ethically and morally applied to wars. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayJust War Theory: Literature ReviewIntroductionJust War Theory primarily provides a strategic framework on why and how wars happen, in addition to having a justified means of waging war. It could be inferred that just war theory relies mainly on three main models: Just ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum. These models will be analyzed and examined in more detail. In applying just war theory, certain principles must be respected. Under normal circumstances, to apply just war theory, all non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified, which constitutes the last resort by which war can be fought. Just war theory is the basis upon which states or individuals seek to morally and legitimately rationalize going to war. The history of just war theory began with the philosopher Augustine who laid the foundation of the theory and commented on the morality of war. According to Vorster, “for a society to be sustainable and preserved from falling into chaos, there must be a sense of virtue and justice that can only emanate from the love of God. This explains why Augustine held to the doctrine of just war and why he expected the state to act coercively to preserve the justice and virtue of society” (2015). Additionally, another philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, systematized Augustine's thoughts into clear principles that have remained the basis of just war theory to this day. Saint Thomas Aquinas presented the broad standards of justification for war and the types of activities and actions tolerated during war. Although just war theory is outdated, recently the theory has been rationalized due to modern warfare and the operational environment in which we operate. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, scholars have turned their attention to just war theory and, more importantly, to the role, implications, and effects of this theory on the dynamic front. While strict rules apply to countries' militaries and individual combatants to adhere to war treaties and conventions, war crimes continue. In some areas of developing countries, such as during the Rwandan genocide, wars are waged against cultural and ethnic groups with much brutality. Although these actions can be debated in favor of just war theory, some engagements in war are considered unjustifiable, regardless of their nature.cause. Under the rule of law, nations or individuals who break or violate the law must be held accountable for their actions. Additionally, it is essential to note the post-war effects on the humanitarian crisis. Additionally, the feminist perspective of just war, which constitutes another criticism of this theory, must be addressed. The feminist view of this theory is concerned with the gendered nature of just war. For some, the cruelties of war will continue due to the failure of applications of morality in war and the inability of international courts to apply law when necessary. . One thing to consider is nations' interests, which in one way or another will trump ethical concerns in war. It should be noted that during wars, ethical concerns become blurred, which proves problematic for the parties involved. Having two ethical visions, one open-minded and the other more restrictive, the just war theory proposes a series of ideologies with the aim of maintaining possible moral strategies of war. In reference to just war, the logic is to differentiate between the rules relating to the fairness of war, which is jus ad bellum, and the objective and reasonable conduct of war and the conditions for waging war; the jus in bello. Although these guidelines are not limited in their terms, they provide a standard of ethical standards for wars. The Jus ad Bellum The fairness of war generally refers to the just cause asserted by an appropriate authority, having the right intentions and a logic of success. which principle should be the last resort. Article two of the United Nations Charter prohibits states from exercising cross-border military services or forces without the approval of the United Nations Security Council (UN Charter, nd). The content of these exceptions gives rise to some debate, as other exceptions that could have existed can be noted. As such, the argument that a nation uses forces without the proper consent of the United Nations Security Council can automatically result in a humanitarian disaster. Mathew Waxman (2013) explored two views of jus ad bellum with strict and clear guidelines, as well as others who will prefer flexibility in evaluating circumstantial issues. Although the article highlights two distinctive views on this model, most agree that jus ad bellum consists of general guidelines applied to applicable values. The article Multi-Part Tests in the Jus ad Bellum by Ashley Deeks (2016) is somewhat similar to Waxman's view. Similarly, requiring some flexibility in understanding in the face of unusual cases might be essentially "ethical" in some circumstances, but allowing extreme flexibility in this doctrine would be detrimental in times of war, potentially undermining the United Nations Charter. in the long term. In these circumstances, nations and states tend to distance themselves. Sometimes countries take actions that are not reasonable within the specifications of jus ad bellum (Monica Hakimi, 2018). In such cases and as indicated by the general guidelines of jus ad bellum, nations whose actions (acting within the "gray zone") indicate that their position reflects particular cases and instances and is not consistent with any law. For example, in April 2017, the United States conducted missile strikes against Syria in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons that potentially killed civilians, including children. The actions of the United States were notnot conform to the “acceptable” standards of jus ad bellum. Furthermore, the actions of the United States were not consistent with the cross-border forces and Syria did not consent to the operation. Essentially, the United Nations Charter did not approve of this action. The United States did not act in self-defense, but emphasized the importance of preventing the use of chemical weapons. Rather, it was a specific act justifying the use of force and supported by other states. Another controversial theory is to apply counterterrorism and the Patriot Act under the Jus ad Bellum. Michael Lacewing (nd) carried out a study on the theory of just war and highlighted all the details of the jus ad bellum for which war must be just. In the past, the connection between morality and counter-terrorism has been researched, hence the need to connect the dots. In analyzing methods of combating both domestic and foreign terrorism, key arguments such as domestic surveillance and the patriotic act, for example, were discussed in the context of just war. The Patriot Act of the United States (2002) has been one of the burning issues when it comes to morality. Some support for its necessity and ethics. Katrine Hadjimatheou (2014) argues that instances of untargeted surveillance make people less skeptical of targeted alternatives. She further emphasizes that untargeted surveillance is likely to be morally profitable when used to enforce order in specific activities. As the Patriot Act expands its ability to conduct and operate domestic and foreign activities, ethical questions have been raised as agencies have been given more authority to use all available resources to combat terrorism. The debate over whether to tighten or remain flexible within the framework of the just ad bellum concept remains unanswered because certain circumstances or cases are defined by both arguments. These arguments can be modified into doctrine that can describe some of the assumptions and the act of balancing ideologies can be written into law. This will eventually help in understanding the limits and values ​​operating under this concept.Jus In BelloIn taking oppositional measures, efforts must be made to accomplish and achieve the objectives with necessary force and to avoid harm to non-combatants. Amounts of force used must be proportional to the destruction while avoiding civilian lives. Additionally, under this concept, civilians need not be subject to direct attacks and military forces should take precautions to minimize or avoid harm to civilians. This falls under the discrimination factor of the concept. Furthermore, the right of intentions in achieving the relative goal of peace must be respected. Alexander Moseley explains in his article on Just War Theory (nd) how waging war can be considered unjust and widely attack innocent people since civilians are not considered part of the war. Moseley further explains that the right case standard is that of offensive action, which must remain strictly proportional to the desired objective. Geoffrey Corn in Self-defense Targeting (2013) explains the concept of jus in bello of alternatives proposed to aim for an applicable stability between the authority capable of making an enemy obey and the humanitarian interest of regulating related anticipated miseries. with conflict. Braun and Brunstetter (2013) argue the opposite of seeking proportionality in bello. With the use of drones, the authors explain that the damage or effects caused by drones are notrelatively proportionate to the achievement of war objectives. The articles further evaluate the ethics of drone use as well as human rights concerns related to the employment of drones on specific war fronts. Michael Boyle (2015) examines the legal and ethical implications of drone warfare. He argues both sides, citing the Obama administration's use of drones to defeat al-Qaeda and its terrorist networks around the world while limiting the use of ground forces to accomplish its mission. On the other hand, Boyle highlights the fact that modern warfare dictates the type of weapon used using ad bellum as just war to update just war theory to meet modern warfare. While some do not believe that morality and ethics do not exist in war, the just in bello system offers guidelines that should be used in war. In the event of war, the states or parties involved will do whatever it takes to win the war and achieve their goal. Although this can be applied; international laws must be respected in a balanced manner and ensure that the principle of humanity is applied in conflicts. Leslie Green (2008) clarifies that conflict policies and norms should aim to protect human life and fundamental principles of human rights to ensure that violence is limited in war.Jus Post BellumWith two essential parts of just war theory discussed above When it comes to justice and how wars are fought, jus post bellum is also essential in just war theory. Gary Bass (2004) explains post-war issues and the importance of stabilizing the war environment. Although the author develops the importance of the post-war period, he also emphasizes the burden placed on the post-war period, even if the war fought may be just. In the article Jus Post Bellum: The Moral Responsibilities of Victors by Louis Iasiello (2004), the author's thoughts align with those of Gary Bass regarding reconstruction and reconstruction and stabilization. The article further clarifies the ethical implications of saving lives after the fact and thus restoring order. Mark Evan (2009) identifies the cost associated with jus post bellum and considers the implications of war by states, as this could be implicated in reconstruction and stability. for the winner. Considering the effects of war and its implications, most people debate the ethical aspect of war to ensure the necessities needed to establish peace and stability. Although this aspect or concept may be costly in itself, the concept must be applied in just war theory in order to achieve the ultimate goal of peace. This concept highlights the gendered nature of just war theory. Jiri Krcek (2012) assesses the gendered nature of just war from the perspective of feminism and describes the revival of just war theory by taking humanitarian harm more seriously. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now.Get a Custom EssayConclusionRecognition of the different arguments of just war theory models provides a basis for adjusting the standards and principles of just war theory when assessment of actions taken by the state, international laws and the need to act abruptly without adhering. to a specific rule. The framework of just war theory must be adjusted to meet the current operational environment and the nature of wars. More :=8289.