The Notion Of War: The Just War Theory

Introduction
The notion of war has always been the subject of moral debate throughout history. World War II is no different in this particular regard. In order for wars to be morally justified, the Just War Theory was developed. The Just War Theory has two specific criteria which must be followed in order for the act of war to be considered morally justified – the jus ad bellum (right to go to war) and jus in bello (rightful conduct within war) criterions. Jus ad bellum dictates that war must be justified as an act to preserve human life and as a last resort. In this aspect, the United States was well-justified in entering World War II. The United States had an obligation to protect its own citizens as well as stopping the spread of evils
through the propagation of Nazi beliefs. Unfortunately, the jus in bello criteria was ignored by the United States in its actions against Japan. In fact, this criteria was blatantly ignored as the United States perpetrated acts of military violence against innocent civilians as a retaliation for the bombing of Pearl Harbor as well as a means to hasten the end of World War II. Based upon the jus in bello criteria, the United States’ actions against Japan in World War II were not justified.
Philosophers and the Just War Theory In order to understand how the United States violated the jus in bello criteria, the Just War Theory must be elucidated.
This theory is divided into two parts: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. In order for a country to declare war in a justifiable manner, it must adhere to the jus ad bellum criteria. This main requisites of ad bellum is just cause, intention, proper authority, probability, of success, and proportionality. “(The) Just War Theory attempts to provide a common sensical combination of both deontology and consequentialism as applied to the issue of war.” The second component of the Just War Theory is the jus in bello criteria. This particular criteria dictates how a country should conduct itself during the war. The in bello also has its own set of requisites: obey all international laws regarding weapons, non-combatant immunity, proportionality of force, benevolent treatment for prisoners of war, actions deemed mala in se (inherently evil) are prohibited, and no acts of revenge. According to Brian Orend, Professor of Philosophy, “Jus in bello essentially boils down to the need for a state, even though it’s involved in a war, nevertheless to still respect the human rights of … citizens as best it can during a
crisis.” The first philosopher to be accredited with the development of the Just War Theory is Augustine of Hippo, whom is also known by the name of Saint Augustine. Creating his theory in the early 5th century AD, Augustine sought a means in which to legitimize the wars of Christian antiquity – primarily to “defend Moses for the spoliation of the Egyptians and the wars of the Israelites.” Augustine ran into major complications when trying to validate his reasons for a justified war. The major complication being that within the context of the New Testament, the usage of violence is often employed as the primary tool to settle disputes rather than the advocacy of pacifism. Although Augustine, himself, preferred pacifism, he did note the necessity for war. In his work, The City of God, the criteria for a justified war is presented. In this particular work, Augustine presents his ideology regarding war as a necessary evil – which is evident in the Bible. Rather than focusing on the wars itself, Augustine created his theory based upon the reasons for war. According to scholar John Langan, “The difference here is not a matter of altering the way in which Moses conducts wars, or the limits that he observes in the use of violence, but a difference in motivation and justification.” Augustine states that morally acceptable wars are necessary to produce unity, peace, and to protect the innocents from external harm and evil. This criteria provides a morally acceptable reason for going to war. Building upon Augustine’s theory, Thomas Aquinas added more stipulations to the Just War Theory. Just like his predecessor, Aquinas was a 13th century Christian philosopher who sought to clarify the legitimacy of war by examining both Augustine’s works as well as the divine laws of God. Aquinas clearly states his three requisites for a just war in the Summa Theologica: sovereign authority, a just cause, and an intention to spread goodwill. While these just war clauses are similar to Augustine’s, Aquinas takes it a step further. In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas divulges his opinion on how combatants should conduct themselves within battle. The major question that Aquinas pondered is whether or not ambush attacks were considered just actions according to the Just War Theory. In his response, he states, “A man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to him… since even in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed… Such concealment is what is meant by an ambush which may be lawfully employed in a just war.” By doing so, Aquinas laid the groundwork for the jus in bello criteria for later wars and philosophers. The idea of jus in bello has often been intermixed with the jus ad bellum clauses. Many scholars/philosophers held the idea that the two terms were interchangeable. How can a just war have immoral actions? The turn of the twentieth century and its technology brought jus in bello back into the minds of scholars, philosophers, and politicians. The advent of chemical and biological warfare developed during World War I brought a need to dictate what would be considered unlawful actions during a time of war. Part of the answer lies in the 1925 Geneva Protocol; it states, “The use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world; and whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties.” This proved to be the first step in legitimizing the Just War Theory as international law in regards to wartime actions. Without such treaties, countries would be free to use destructive weapons without any regards to human life. Unfortunately, the world powers did not have the foresight to predict the blatant disregard to human life which occurred during World War II. It was not until the 1949 Geneva Convention which protected civilians and non-combatants during wartime. The Fourth Geneva Convention states, “[It] is intended to provide the civilian population with general protection against certain consequences of war. Part III – the main body of the Convention – is intended to provide civilians with certain safeguards against arbitrary action on the part of an enemy Power in whose hands they are.” Because of the sheer destruction of human life during World War II, it was deemed necessary to legitimately create laws to protect non-combatants. Without such laws, civilians would have no protection and would be used as targets in order to quickly crush the morale of enemy forces. Essentially, the atrocities committed during World War II by both Allied and Axis Powers alike caused a need for the international community to develop and adopt the jus in bello criteria in order to deter military powers from harming civilians.
United States’ Actions Against Japan and the Just War Theory With the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, the United States brought its full military might against the Japanese Empire. This pre-emptive strike against Hawaii allowed the United States to rightfully declare war on the Axis Powers as mandated by the Just War Theory. According to the jus ad bellum criteria, the United States was well-justified in entering the World War II stage: it had an obligation to protect its own citizens from Japan as well as stymieing the spread of Nazi violence in Europe. The United States’ entrance into World War II is, without doubt, justified according to the Just War Theory. Unfortunately, the jus in bello criteria was not followed by the United States’ military. Rather than striking solely against the Japanese military, the United States’ military employed aerial attacks against Japan’s noncombatants. These attacks decimated the Japanese country as it killed almost half a million innocent civilians. The usage of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only added to this death toll. With no way to defend themselves, Japanese citizens lived in fear as the United States continued its aerial assaults until the Japanese surrender on September 2nd, 1945. According to the jus in bello criteria, the United States had a moral obligation to not assault the general populace of Japan during World War II.
Instead of adhering to these moral guidelines, the jus in bello protocol was blatantly ignored by the United States. The primary means of attacking Japan was via aerial attacks. Originally, these aerial raids were meant to be strategic in nature – targeting only the military factories. Unfortunately, this proved to be ineffective due to the unstable weather surrounding Japan. This forced the military to move onto another tactic – fire bombing. According to Thomas R. Searle, “The United States Army Air Forces devoted the bulk of its effort to ‘area raids’ that used incendiary bombs to burn down Japanese cities and to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.” These acts are not in compliance with the jus in bello criteria. The United States purposefully targeted civilians. There was no military advantage in doing so other than to terrorize the country as a whole. The Air Force employed a quick strike tactic which emphasized the maximum amount of destruction with the minimal amount of damage done to the B-29 aircrafts. Searle writes, “From 9 March on, the bulk of the B-29 effort went into low-altitude incendiary raids that burned down Japan’s cities and killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians… The primary goal of USAAF incendiary bombing of Japan was to ‘demoralize the urban population.’” Aerial warfare,
during World War II, was known for creating this sense of demoralization. The Japanese civilians had no way to defend themselves against such a tactic. According to Lewis S. Thompson, “Aerial warfare created an attitude of hopelessness and defeat as community life was disrupted, as health and welfare organizations collapsed, and as essential utilities and key economic services were destroyed.” These aerial raids were not focused on eliminating military targets; they were intended to completely decimate the morale of Japanese civilians. The Tokyo fire bombings of March 9-10, 1945 were some of the most destructive acts of the war against Japanese civilians during the entirety of World War II. Rough estimates show that these raids killed over 100,000 civilians, left almost a million homeless, and destroyed roughly 15 square miles of the city itself. The citizens simply had no way of defending themselves from such an onslaught of firepower.
Although these air raids were incredibly effective at destroying enemy morale, they were also considered to be in direct violation with the jus in bello criteria of the necessity to preserve human life. This particular tactic has been termed “terror bombings” by Air Marshall Sir Arthur Harris. These bombings were an act of terror even according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s definition. According to the FBI, International Terrorism is defined by three characteristics: violent acts against human life that violates state or federal laws, intended to intimidate a civilian population, and lastly, occurs outside the jurisdiction of the United States. If this definition is accepted, then the United States blatantly committed acts of terrorism against Japan during World War II.