Just War Tradition

[Durian10]

Just a quick question for politics....

Is the "Just War Tradition" still being used today? It just seems like that none of these 10 political values of war are not shown at all these days.

[Shek]

Just a quick question for politics....

Is the "Just War Tradition" still being used today? It just seems like that none of these 10 political values of war are not shown at all these days.

What is the "Just War Tradition?" To me, just war doesn't = political values, but moral values.

[Durian10]

What is the "Just War Tradition?" To me, just war doesn't = political values, but moral values.

Just War Traditions
a. Just Cause – there must be a real, lasting, grave and certain damage inflicted by an aggressor on a nation or a community of nations.
b. Legitimate Authority – the right to declare a war of defense belongs to those who have the legitimate responsibility to represent the people and are entrusted with common good.
c. Comparative Justice – the rights and values in the conflict must be so important that they justify killing.
d. Right Intention – to be just, a war must be waged for the best of reasons and with a commitment to a postwar reconciliation with the enemy.
e. Probability of Success – the odds of success should be weighed against the human cost of war.
f. Proportionality – the damage to be inflicted and the cost incurred by the war must be proportionate to the good expected.
g. Last Resort – war must be a last resort, justifiable only if all peaceful efforts have been tried and exhausted and there are no alternatives.
h. Immunity of non-combatants – civilians may not be the object of direct attack.
i. Proportionality (casualties) – minimum force necessary to obtain military objectives should be carefully adhered to so undue.
j. Right Intention (Political and Military Leaders) – political and military leaders must always see that peace with justice is the only reason for the use of arms.

[Shek]

This is rooted in moral values and not political values. Also, last resort is not part of the just war "tradition."

[zraver]

Just War Traditions
a. Just Cause – there must be a real, lasting, grave and certain damage inflicted by an aggressor on a nation or a community of nations.

Like 9-11 or another Mideast war if Saddam had been allowed to re-arm.

b. Legitimate Authority – the right to declare a war of defense belongs to those who have the legitimate responsibility to represent the people and are entrusted with common good.

Al Queda and the Taliban attacked the US and the thus US retains the right to defend itself. In Iraq the US had the legal authority to enforce previously passed UN resolutions that specifically authorized the use of force. When Iraq was found to be in violation, it was prima facia evidence that Saddam had broken the cease fire and a state of war once again existed. Plus the US led the largest gathering of nations ever seen outside the UN itself.

c. Comparative Justice – the rights and values in the conflict must be so important that they justify killing.

Stopping terror (A-stan) and genocide (Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia). As I state later, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace are superior laws.

d. Right Intention – to be just, a war must be waged for the best of reasons and with a commitment to a postwar reconciliation with the enemy.

Like rebuilding nations and moving as fast as possible, possibly faster than was prudent to restore local and then national governments in Iraq and A-stan, or to secure the right for the affected people to choose their government (Bosnia).

e. Probability of Success – the odds of success should be weighed against the human cost of war.

Not true, If Saddam had kept Kuwait, he would have held the world hostage, if one of his biological experiments had gown wrong who knows what the cost might have been. Al Queda and other Islamic terror groups like mass-casualty events and have now killed well over 100,000 people on 5 continents (6 if you count Bali as part of the Australian continental area). Only Antarctica has not heard Allu Akbar before a mas murder. Even if the war cannot be won it must still be fought.

f. Proportionality – the damage to be inflicted and the cost incurred by the war must be proportionate to the good expected.

Cost is meaningless, sometimes you have to spend more treasure than you could possibly gain in order to safeguard other things.

g. Last Resort – war must be a last resort, justifiable only if all peaceful efforts have been tried and exhausted and there are no alternatives.

Not true, a nation that has been attacked, or is clearly about to be attacked retains the sovereign right of self defense.

h. Immunity of non-combatants – civilians may not be the object of direct attack.

Again, not true. Civilians may be the object of direct attack so long as the military necessity requires it. A classic example of this is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite the massive death toll the two attacks caused, the stated goal (ending the war) and its achievement thus meet the necessity threshold. It is likely those two bombs saved millions of lives in Japan and millions more in Western Europe. Without the bomb, Stalin might have tried to close the air routes in 1947. With the bomb he could not do it becuse the air routes were laid out in writing by treaty and backed by force.

i. Proportionality (casualties) – minimum force necessary to obtain military objectives should be carefully adhered to so undue.

The drone strikes are the best example of this. The can literally enter a single room and hit the target and leave people in other parts of the house a chance of survival while doing almost no damage to the neighborhood. The newest gizmo are DIME weapons which may allow high tech high altitude sniping of high-value targets with almost no risk of collateral damage.

j. Right Intention (Political and Military Leaders) – political and military leaders must always see that peace with justice is the only reason for the use of arms.

No, sometimes peace and justice cannot co-exist. Some regimes are so evil they must be smothered. The requirement to be at peace is not the superior law in the question. Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against Peace and War Crimes are superior laws that supersede all lower laws.

[Rick]

Not true, a nation that has been attacked, or is clearly about to be attacked retains the sovereign right of self defense.

i think it's not the defence, that matters, it's the attack-to be the last thing to do

[Durian10]

My bad on the moral part guys, I didn't make these morals up though, I picked it up in my Social Studies class. zraver thanks for commenting on the morals,I understand it more now :D