The Ideas Of Realism And Just War Theory

Conflicts between international countries are apart of the world we live in currently. Different way on how to address and pursue these problems to find solutions vary in range. Ideas of pacifism, realism, and just war theory are way to interpret problem solving for war. Just war theory has shared characteristics of realism relating to war being apart of our lives, and the pacifist motives to not going to war but differing because there are some reasons to go to war. Just war theory allows war to have morals. This leads to limitations on the amounts of wars that would happen if realism was the main approach and pacifism having unrealistic expectations of no war.
Realism approaches international conflict with the idea of strategy for ultimate success at any cost. To go at extraordinary measures to win and
This indicates that the economy of the Westbrook would be in danger along with the lives of the citizens. There are two major points to consider when evaluating the cause to go to war in just war theory. Jus ad bellum would allow Embiid to go to war because of the threat of the resources being taken control over, leaving the country unable to thrive alone. The economy would suffer. Along with the overview that Westbrook is unable to defend themselves; which allowed for Emiid to defend Westbrook on their behalf. This can only be done as if Westbrook themselves would have justification to go to war before Embiid could take the place of Westbrook in war due to their inability to protect themselves.
Jus in bello is the second step in a sense following the thought processes of jus ad bellum. Following the reason and justifications of going to war, is what is permissible in war. Things such as how when Embiid goes to war based on jus ad bellum, at what extent can Embiid protect Westbrook from Durant’s morally unjustifiable military