Today, there are 8 conditions of just war. Some are jus ad bellum, meaning what you do in preparation for war and some are jus in bello, what your conduct is during war.
1) It must be declared by a supreme authority. If anyone wanted to begin a war, wars would be continuous; this is something you do in preparation for war so it is jus ad bellum.
2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if the war is just before war has started. There is only one just cause to go to war, to defend oneself.
3) War must be the last resort. If the situation can be resolved by communication, then it makes sense to communicate, rather than to go to war. This is prevention of a war, before it breaks out; therefore it is jus ad bellum.
4) The expected war must not be out of proportion to the crisis. You cannot go to war just because someone else was late for a meeting. This is jus ad bellum as the war is expected, and the war has not happened yet.
5) There must be a reasonable chance of success. If you know that your country cannot win, there is no point in going to war if your troops are just going to die for nothing. This has to be assessed before going to war, it is jus ad bellum.
6) The war must be fought with the right intention- peace. The intention has to be decided before going to war; this is why this condition is jus ad bellum.
7) Those who are not fighting should not be the intentional object of an attack. It is not fair for innocent civilians to be hurt intentionally. This is a condition that is only used when war is going on, so it is jus in bello.
8) An attack must be proportionate. If the war was fairly minor, concerning a small island, using nuclear weapons may be disproportionate. The occasion to use any sort weapons would only occur when you were in a war, this makes this condition jus in bello.
The just war theory differs to pacifism because the just war theory is actually realistic in the way that it is set out, there are bound to be wars, and the just war theory helps to justify these wars. In an age of weapons of mass destruction, the just war theory is an important deterrent to ensure that proportionate action is taken during war. It is important to have some rules for war than none at all because guidelines such as the just war theory make war more humane and can set the foundation for international law, like the Geneva Convention. The rules also have a psychological benefit as well; one side will want to keep to the rules so that the other side do as well. To prove that the just war condition works there would have to be wars that would have been just, like the Falklands war, this shows us that it can work in practice.
On the other hand, the just war theory is just guidelines and there are no real laws for it, so why should people pay attention to it if there is no real punishment? Are we being too optimistic in our peace-keeping? We shouldn’t really expect humans to behave correctly at all times, even in warfare. Some people say that no war today can be just because of weapons of mass destruction are always disproportionate and they make the theory obsolete. There are also several disadvantages of the individual conditions. What exactly is a just cause? Who would count as a supreme authority and how much is disproportionate? Many of the conditions are vague and hard to measure.
Christian Pacifists think that the just war theory is not a Christian theory because Christians should only hold specifically Christian teachings on moral issues, such as those in the Bible and in church. They may say that they don’t want anything to do with it because it has Greek origins, no Christian. They also think that there is no such thing as a just war as violence shouldn’t be used, which contradicts Jesus’ teachings. In Matthew 5.39 he says, ‘But if someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ In the modern world it is like saying that if one country does something to annoy you, don’t retaliate, let them do something else to annoy you also. ‘For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’ (Matthew 26.52) This is to say that those who choose to go to war will die in war and that violence doesn’t relieve pain, it causes it, so there should be no war at all.
To defend the just war theory, other Christians may say that the principles of the theory are very much like those of Christianity, which are peace and protecting the innocent. The just war theory fits in with Christian ideas. P. Ramsey says that Jesus’ teachings on enemies and revenge only refer to a private individual and Christians have a duty to defend innocent victims.
In Romans 13, there is submission to the authorities as they represent God. The authorities ‘bear the sword’ and so have the right to use violence. Jesus uses force to clear the temple in Mark 11, but this is for a good cause, therefore it is just. ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ (Matthew 5.9) this is saying that war may be necessary for a just peace.
R. Harries, a Christian thinker thought that nuclear weapons are part of the just war tradition, and used to control the situation. He also thought that we should be prepared to carry out our threat, (a deterrent) but we don’t want to use the nuclear weapons because they cause too much damage.
G.E.M Anscomb believed that deaths are still deaths, even if the aim is for something good, you can’t justify a mean by its end. A. Kenny backs her up and thinks that you can’t pretend that you are not responsible for killing civilians just because you didn’t mean to.
In the book of Revelations, nuclear war is ‘predicted’ and A. Chester thinks countries who use nuclear weapons believe that they are ‘fulfilling God’s will.’
