English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A Just War Theory is a moral doctrine about the use of force. It underlines certain basic principles of waging war, starting from the intention to wage war until the conduct of soldiers during war, known to be jus ad bellum ( the resort to war), jus in bello ( the actual conduct of war), and the most recent development jus post bellum ( justice after war). As propagated, Just War Theory legitimized the use of force as long as all the requirements of its principles has been fulfilled; first is the principle of jus ad bellum lays the justifying requirements for why war is waged, namely just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, proportionality, probability of success and war as the last resort. Second is the principle of jus in bello, the justifying principle governing the conduct within war, namely proportionality, right intention as well as the issue of noncombatant immunity Keyword: Just War Theory, Conflict. Introduction To many individuals, political scientists as well as laymen, the phrase “Just War” appears to be a contradiction in terms. The effort of establishing rules and regulations by which men intentionally and systematically kill other human beings is continually questioned and heavily criticized. War as a social phenomenon, has been defined as “a fight between human societies, in primitive conditions between savage tribes, in the civilized world between states” (Joachim, 1939). Ever since history has recorded the activities of organized groups, war has been one of its principal topics. The outcome of war is brutal and tragic despite whether it served the purpose of its initiator or not. War should be undertaken as infrequently and humanely as possible. Yet, war is also, at times, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 1 0 , No. 8, 2020, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2020 HRMARS 964 necessary. Thus the employment of force needs to be limited by accepted moral principles, the Just War Theory. Critics of Just War Theory often ask a penetrating question of if one is abhorred by war, why outline principles that seek to morally justify it. Just war theorists share with realists the basic assumption that international life is essentially anarchic and dangerous. Unfortunately, war is a central feature of human civilization and will occur in spite of our continuous efforts to prevent it. The critical reality makes it necessary to adopt moral guidelines limiting the use of force for those who would undertake it. The creation of the United Nations as an intergovernmental organization in 1945 has paved way for more integrated cooperation among nation states. One of the main objectives of the United Nations is to protect the security of the international community in hope to bring peace after the sufferings of two world wars. Rapid development of modern warfare has challenged not only the reliability of the UN but also challenged the traditional view on war and peace itself. Peace is often viewed as the condition where there is no war but the reality dictates that the absence of war does not mean that there is peace. The UN is now facing a new threat to the security of the international system that is a threat coming from those nations relapse to the cycle of conflict due to mismanagement of postconflict justice such as Afghanistan and Iraq. As the sources of the international law on the use of force, jus ad bellum and jus in bello have for centuries been guiding the use of force starting from waging war to guiding the process of war until the ‘just’ objective of the war is achieved. What happened after the war, which is the post-conflict reconstruction, is always an afterthought whereas it should be included in the systematic formulation before the war is waged in order to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Jus post bellum has never been given any attention but the recent upturn of events of terrorism which has its roots coming from those countries left in shambles after war has turned the debates on the necessity of jus post bellum and just peace as the main element of post-conflict justice. The objectives of this study is to examine Just War Theory, the origin and its development. Just War Theory Just War Theory is a singular theory of justice as it relates to war has developed with enough consistency that it has become a tradition. The emphasis here is justice. The importance of justice to human being is overwhelmingly apparent. However the very meaning of justice is always disputed. The philosopher Walzer (2006), referring to the various interpretations of justice, calls its ambiguity an “anarchy of moral meanings”. Before asking what is just it is best first to explore the two principle meaning of justice. Aristotle called justice “the very criterion of what is right” (Herman and Osborn, 1942). This is a well-known but vague definition as to what is right? Kant said that from the beginning of human history “some form of civil government and public justice began...From this first, crude structure, all human arts, of which sociability and civil security are the most worthwhile, could gradually develop...” (Cummiskey, 2008). Rawls (1999) calls justice “the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”. Morgenthau (1970) in his book Truth and Power (1970) acknowledged , “ To do justice and to receive it is an elemental aspiration of man”. Hence no matter on what side of the distinction between the two types of justice one may fall, justice is nevertheless the cornerstone of ethical thought. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 1 0 , No. 8, 2020, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2020 HRMARS 965 The element of just or justice imbedded on the Doctrine of Just War Theory should be elaborated thoroughly so that we can understand its application through its main principles that will be highlighted later in this paper. Rawl’s theory of justice in his book A Theory of Justice calls justice as “ the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is the systems of thought” (Rawl, 1999). In this context, Rawls (1999) emphasizes that justice should (1) guarantee the right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty of others and (2) social and economic positions are to be to everyone’s advantage and open to all. Rawls also states that an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Now having to elaborate the definition of justice by various other philosophers, it is best that we revert back our attention to the man of our analysis, Thomas Aquinas. Justice has been discussed in great length in Aquinas’ theory of natural law. Aquinas (Dierksmeier and Celano, 2014) holds that the “natural light “of reason ultimately leads to truth. In Aquinas views, the human being is endowed with rational capacities sufficient for earthly life; they may be supervened but are not contradicted or annihilated by ‘supernatural’, for example revelation-based knowledge (Dierksmeier and Celano, 2014) . Revelation-based knowledge urges studying the world in its own light, that is, uncovering the laws of nature as they show themselves to natural reason, honours God, he argues, because through creation we learn indirectly about its Creator (Dierksmeier and Celano, 2014) . He later emphasizes that true faith ought to be based upon worldly knowledge, since God chose to reveal himself also in and through His creation. The basic tenets of theoretical philosophy can be known solely by reason, and the same holds for the fundamentals of moral reasoning. According to Aquinas, God’s governance of the universe through “divine reason” proceeds in ordering everything towards the good through eternal law (Dierksmeier and Celano, 2014) . Aquinas put a lot of faith in human reasoning that will incline to do good and avoid evil. It is indeed idealistic view of human, neglecting the bad side of free thinking. In upholding human reasoning capacity as the main mechanism to differentiate between right and wrong without any check and balance mechanism is both risky and foolish. To make it simple, good for one does not mean it is good for all. To continue on Aquinas, he stated that human life receives an elevated status because human intellect can be cognizant of the order that governs life by recognizing the natural laws of both human and sub-human life (Elshtein, 2004). Aquinas further explains that “... human reason can understand how natural laws orient all beings towards their good which when realized perfects them. Unlike animals, however, human beings cannot rely solely on natural instincts to achieve their good. Aquinas explains that as being acting upon rational conception about the world, human needs to represent to themselves the goals (as objectives) they are to pursue; they need to make the implicit law that governs their lives explicit.” (Elshtein, 2004) According to (Dierksmeier and Celano, 2014) human needs specific cultural forms in order to articulate ethical norms. Moral insight advances through the unification of three different levels of ethical understanding: 1) A principled insight that good is to be pursued and evil to be avoided 2) A situational judgment that informs which kind of behaviour meets the criteria of law, custom and virtue that specify the good in each concrete context 3) Knowledge that identifies the specific factual nature of the case at hand The general principle of basic goods of human life is “to do good and to avoid evil”. To do good is natural goods for example like preservation, procreation, social responsibility and spiritual growth while to avoid evil means that one should do no harm to no one. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 1 0 , No. 8, 2020, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2020 HRMARS 966 Having to discuss Thomas Aquinas’ natural law, we should now have at least a basic understanding on what is justice. Aquinas defined jus

The Just War Theory: Accounting Jus Post Bellum