Just War Theory By Barbara Mackinnon

The English term ‘war’ is an adaptation of the old German word ‘werran’, which means “to confuse or to cause confusion” (Mark). Wars have been around in the world ever since the time of ancient Mesopotamia around the time of 2300 BCE. In general, war is used to solve conflicts between two or more nations through the format of military battles. There are many people who oppose the use of war to solve conflicts, arguing that there are less violent ways to solve conflicts between nations. That being said however, there still has yet to be a compromise format that has been proven to successfully end conflicts between nations in a way that war has been able to do and for that reason, wars still do exist on Earth. Terrorism, on the other hand, is
in no way ever an acceptable action. The U.S. Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (MacKinnon, p. 219). The difference that allows war to be considered just and terrorism to not be just is the fact that war is between two willing groups of people fighting for a cause. This differs from terrorism because terrorist acts are against people who are unknowingly being targeted for the sense of killing innocent people and imposing fear on them. Therefore, although both war and terrorism are both associated with acts of violence, war, unlike terrorism, can be argued as a just action in some circumstances.

In terms of ethical standards, there are the three criteria that make up the Just War Theory.
As explained by Barbara MacKinnon, the two main principles that make up the Just War Theory are Jus ad Bellum, which is the justness of going to war and Jus in Bello, which is the justness in war (MacKinnon, p. 223). Each of these principles contains several subcategories that explain how they are able to argue war as a just action. Jus ad Bellum has four subcategories. These subcategories include just cause, proportionality, last resort, and right intention. Just Cause basically means “to use force against another nation, there must be a serious reason to justify” (MacKinnon, p. 223). Proportionality is essentially proving that “the probable good to be produced by the intervention must outweigh the likely evil that the war or use of force will cause” (MacKinnon, p. 224). Last Resort requires “that some other means be attempted, at least those that are judged to have a chance of achieving the goal specified by the just cause” (MacKinnon, p. 224). Right Intention means “that the intervention be always directed to the goal set by the cause and to the eventual goal of peace” (MacKinnon, p. 224). The second part of the Just War Theory is Jus in Bello. Jus in Bello is the portion of the Just War Theory that deals with just actions during the war. Jus in Bello also has two subcategories, which are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality has essentially the same meaning as
mentioned above, however it is adapted to during the war rather than the pre-war phase. Discrimination refers to the fact that “this prohibits direct intentional attacks on noncombatants and nonmilitary targets” (MacKinnon, p. 224). These two portions of the Just War Theory and their six total subcategories are what do into deciphering if a war is just or not. Each of these six categories must be met in order for a war conflict to be considered just.

When it comes to deciding if a war is just or not, it truly boils down to the choice of when to go to war.
If we take the time to examine each of the main wars in American history, it can be seen that the closest we have ever been to a truly just war was World War 2. Entering the war was truly a last resort for the United States, but due to the bombing at Pearl Harbor, we as a country could only respond in one way. This was a war in which we entered with the right intention of putting an end to the mass murdering of innocent victims that was going on overseas. We as a country had more to gain by entering the war than by sitting on the sidelines in a sense that we found it necessary to back our allies in order to keep them as just that, allies. These four pillars of just cause, proportionality, last resort, and right intention all put together justified America’s choice to enter in to World War 2. Although it is true that entering World War 2 qualified under the Just War Theory, this theory does still have its flaws. The main flaw, when considering how the theory dealt with the occurrences of World War 2 was the idea of last resort. If America had acted sooner, the attack on Pearl Harbor may have never happened and we would not have lost so many American lives. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of terrorism meant to scare America away from entering the war. For this reason, the more beneficial useful concept might actually be justifiable war. According to Richard
Haass of the Washington Post, “Justifiable wars undoubtedly include wars of necessity, that is, wars in which the most vital interests of a country are threatened and where there are no promising alternatives to using force” (Haass). He then goes on to say that these justifiable wars are indeed possible “when using force is the best available policy option. The argument that the goal is worthy and that war is the best option for pursuing it should be strong enough to garner considerable domestic and international support. More important, the case should be persuasive that using military force will accomplish more good for more people at a lower cost than diplomacy, sanctions, or inaction” (Haass). This idea of justifiable war is more ideal because it contains most of the ideologies in the just war theory, but also takes into account what is best for the people of the country deciding on whether or not war is the best option. By this standard, World War Two and the first Iraqi War were justifiable wars because they were wars of self-defense. Overall, justifiable war theory is more ideal than just war theory because it takes into account what is best for the citizens, rather than just considering if entering the war is just or not from an ethical standpoint. The difference between the violent acts committed between war and terrorism is that terrorist acts are violent acts in which “Innocent people were intentionally killed” (Yount). In addition to harming innocent people, another negative effect of terrorism is how “Property (that didn’t belong to the terrorists) was destroyed” (Yount). Uwe Steinhoff points out in his book, On the Ethics of War and Terrorism, terrorist acts are usually exercised by “illegitimate authorities” (Steinhoff, p. 8). In the case of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, it can be seen that these are definitely terrorist acts for several reasons. This is for three basic reasons. The first reason that these attacks would be considered terrorist acts would be that they were not because of social or political reasons. These actions were also committed in order to invoke fear and panic. Finally, the actions were also not random. These three reasons put together all point to the fact that the attacks on the World Trade Center were acts of terrorism and therefore unjust actions.

Based on the differences shown between war and terrorism in the paragraphs above, I feel that although these are both violent events that it can be seen that one of them can qualify as a just action and one can not. As long as war is treated as a last resort option and that all of the other just pillars are followed, in my opinion war can be justified as a legit option. Quoting Alfred Pennyworth from Batman, “Some men just want to watch the world burn” (Nolan). Although this is a quote from a Hollywood production, as much as we do not like to admit it, there are some truly disgusting people out in the world that think in this manner. Because of this, war is sometimes the only plausible option to combat these people’s actions. Acts of terrorism on the other hand are never justifiable. This is because terrorist’s goals are to intentionally harm innocent people in order to bring about fear. Terrorists are people who attempt to intentionally harm innocent citizens, rather than those fighting for the other side of the conflict. It is a countries duty to protect its citizens by any means necessary and if a terrorist decides to make an unjust action, it can only be justifiable to retaliate in defense of the citizens that a military is meant to protect.

Although I feel that war is a just action in some circumstances, there are plenty of other people who disagree with me. Those who feel war is never an acceptable option are referred to as pacifists. These people are committed to non-violent teachings, however the flaw in their argument is the fact that many people do not follow their belief system and will use violence to get what they want anyways. Another argument is that killing innocent people is wrong and that life is sacred. Although I agree that killing innocent people is wrong, the just war theory and justifiable war theory both hold this to be true also. These theories teach that we are only to fight against those who are fighting back and that innocent people are to be unharmed. Unfortunately this is not always the case in war, but it is the goal of a just war and therefore proves that just wars are acceptable. A third argument is that wars cannot achieve political and social goals. This is most likely the best rebuttal to why wars are ethical because this argument “argues that even if it seems that such goals might be achieved, in fact the use of war will ultimately prevent them from ever becoming a reality. Thus, wars are unethical because they hinder rather than help in attaining important ends” (Antiwar Arguments). Although this argument may be valid in a sense that war does not truly result in achieving political and social goals, there is still no better alternative and because of this war is still the best, last resort option in achieving these goals.

Overall throughout this essay it can be seen that there are some distinct differences between that of the violent actions in both war and terrorism. War on one hand has the ability to be justified through the just war theory that claims as long as both the pre-war phase and war phase both follow the standards set by this theory that the war is a justifiable action due to the fact that it is most likely in defense in order to stop some wrong doing. Terrorism on the other hand can never be justified. According to Stephen Nathanson in his book Terrorism and the Ethics of War, “Because terrorism is inherently evil, people who engage in terrorism are evil. Terrorists have no positive moral values and only seek to destroy what is good” (Nathanson, p.3). This is the thought process that garnered the governmental action following the 9/11 attacks and what brought about the second war in Iraq. By defending our country and responding to the attacks on American soil, it can be argued we acted in a justified manner and therefore the actions in Iraq would indeed comply with the just war theory. Therefore, although war is not always the best option, sometimes it may be the only option and because of this it must be seen as a just option in times where it is a last resort. Protecting American citizens is the uppermost duty of the United States government and if war is necessary to complete this duty, then I feel that war must always be an option.