Philosophers Aristotle and Ciero wrote that a war would be just if it was in self-defence. (Aristotle in Politics I, 3.1256b23-27, fourth century BCE and Ciero in De offciis I, II). In the fifth century, St Augustine of Hippo justified war if it was to defend the church against those who threatened faith. Their thinking was based on teachings from the Old Testament.
For a war to be just three conditions were given by St Thomas Aquinas during the thirteen century. These were that the war must only be started and controlled by the authority of the state or the ruler. There must be a just cause, being those who are attacked are attacked because they deserve it. And the final condition being that the war must be fought to avoid evil and promote good and justice and peace must be restored afterwards.
Francisco Suarez and Francisco de Vitoria later added three final conditions. It was understood that the war must be the last result; all non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified, and there must be “proportionality” and a chance of success. Proportionality can be understood in Aquinas’ understanding of a “just war”. He argued that warring activity should be proportionate to the hostility made and not excessive to that hostility.
Many people have criticised the Just War Theory. In theory the just war conditions seem acceptable but in practice this is not the case. The ‘just war theory’ has never been successfully employed therefore it suggests that the conditions are not suitable in war or that there is no way that they can be followed to make a war fully justified.
When evaluating the theory it should also be considered that the church, which are responsible for the theory have no influence on the government. No church organisation is in place at a national or international level to determine whether a war is just or not. Some may believe that this does not matter as the church is teaching what they believe to be the most effective method and it is for others to decide if they adapt it or not.
One of the strongest criticisms of the just war theory is that who is the just side? Both sides have an equal responsibility for the bloodshed. It is impossible to say a war is just when innocent people are dying. In any war the main aim is to win therefore no war is proportionate both sides have the same intentions and will be ruthless to gain what they want.
It is not possible to determine the outcome in any war, yet one of the conditions states that war should only go ahead if good will result in the end therefore how is it ever justifiable to enter a war following this conditions when there is no way of predicting the future?
It is very difficult to select who is and who is not a combatant. It could be considered that just those who fight in the war are combatants but what about those who make uniforms for the soldiers or those who make food to feed them, are they also combatants? It is not easy to define who is the ‘innocent’.
The criticisms to the just war theory seem to be much stronger than its strengths.
