Just War
War in Afghanistan
Just War theory points out that there can be motives for going to war that do have a moral content, and just war theory claims that war can, under certain conditions, be morally justified. Proportionality is perhaps the most utilitarian of all Just War tenets. It calls upon leaders not to lose their head and engage in costly conflict if there are cheaper (e.g. economic, diplomatic) options available to them. There are three main opponents to the Just War theory: the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum), how war is fought (jus in bello), and how conflict should end (jus post bellum). Jus ad bellum are often due to self-defense, the defense of others from aggressive attack, the protection of innocent people from aggressive regimes, or corrective punishment for aggression past action. All involve the ‘resistance of aggression’, the violation of basic rights by use of armed force. Jus in bello, means justice in war, and has traditionally been concerned with the treatment of the enemy (i.e. there is a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Only combatants may be targeted). Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, which includes peace treaties, war crime trials, reconstruction etc. However, theories like Realism say that moral concepts cannot be applied to questions of war (or foreign policy generally) (Patterson).
If Hans J. Morgenthau was asked the question whether or not he thought that the war in Afghanistan was a Just war, he would acknowledge that “universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states” that “they must be filtered through concrete circumstances of time and place”(Morgenthau). Morgenthau would argue that the reason why the United States is at war in Afghanistan is because it has serious national security interests at stake, which cannot be correlated to a question of just war or not just war. Morgenthau would further his point by saying that “the threat of physical violence is an intrinsic
Just War theory points out that there can be motives for going to war that do have a moral content, and just war theory claims that war can, under certain conditions, be morally justified. Proportionality is perhaps the most utilitarian of all Just War tenets. It calls upon leaders not to lose their head and engage in costly conflict if there are cheaper (e.g. economic, diplomatic) options available to them. There are three main opponents to the Just War theory: the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum), how war is fought (jus in bello), and how conflict should end (jus post bellum). Jus ad bellum are often due to self-defense, the defense of others from aggressive attack, the protection of innocent people from aggressive regimes, or corrective punishment for aggression past action. All involve the ‘resistance of aggression’, the violation of basic rights by use of armed force. Jus in bello, means justice in war, and has traditionally been concerned with the treatment of the enemy (i.e. there is a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Only combatants may be targeted). Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, which includes peace treaties, war crime trials, reconstruction etc. However, theories like Realism say that moral concepts cannot be applied to questions of war (or foreign policy generally) (Patterson).
If Hans J. Morgenthau was asked the question whether or not he thought that the war in Afghanistan was a Just war, he would acknowledge that “universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states” that “they must be filtered through concrete circumstances of time and place”(Morgenthau). Morgenthau would argue that the reason why the United States is at war in Afghanistan is because it has serious national security interests at stake, which cannot be correlated to a question of just war or not just war. Morgenthau would further his point by saying that “the threat of physical violence is an intrinsic
Bibliography: Doyle, Michael W. "3." Liberalism and World Politics. London: Allyn and Bacon, 1999. 80-93. Print. Morgenthau, Hans. "3." Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2005. 56-60. Print. Patterson, Eric. "Just War in the 21st Century: Reconceptualizing Just War Theory after September 11." International Politics 42.1 (2005): 116-34. Print. Peterson, V. Spike, and Anne Sisson Runyan. "2." Gender Issues in the New Mellenium. 3rd ed. Boulder: Westview, 2010. 37+. Print. Wendt, Alexander. "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics." International Organization 46.02 (1992): 93-117. Print. .