Was World War Ii a Legitimate War? in the Context of Just War Theory.
Was World War II a legitimate war? in the context of just war theory.
'In war some sorts of restraint, both on what we can legitimately fight for (jus ad bellum) and on how we may legitimately fight (jus in bello), are morally required'.1 However, recent theorists also add the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus post bellum) to the main two categories of just war theory. From Christian perspective the function of the JWT was simply an excuse of making war morally and religiously possible writes Michael Walzer. He also agrees with its defendants, that it made war possible in a world where war was, sometimes, necessary. JWT is therefore to be used as a sort of moral rule-book from which legitimate instances of the use of force can be read off whenever needed.2 That said this essay aims to investigate and legitimate World War II by examining jus ad bellum's predominant principles – just cause, rightful authority and right intention, further by examining jus in bello's essential principle of non-combatant immunity and discrimination, and finally, looking closely at two peculiar moral events of closing days of World War II.
The jus ad bellum consisting of six principles: (i) the just cause, (ii) rightful authority to wage war, (iii) right intention, (iv) exhausting all other reasonable resolutions before waging war as last resort, (v) reasonable hope of state to win else they should not opt to wage war and (vi) proportional means of military force to objectives sought; of which first three are predominant both in the development of the theory and in its historical application as stated by Johnson.3 First, just cause evaluates the use of force as means of self-defence or defence of third party against wrongful attack and punishment of the acts against humanity. Second, rightful authority legitimises only states as rightful to wage wars not criminals, corporations or individuals who are deemed/seen illegitimate states Shapcott. And
'In war some sorts of restraint, both on what we can legitimately fight for (jus ad bellum) and on how we may legitimately fight (jus in bello), are morally required'.1 However, recent theorists also add the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus post bellum) to the main two categories of just war theory. From Christian perspective the function of the JWT was simply an excuse of making war morally and religiously possible writes Michael Walzer. He also agrees with its defendants, that it made war possible in a world where war was, sometimes, necessary. JWT is therefore to be used as a sort of moral rule-book from which legitimate instances of the use of force can be read off whenever needed.2 That said this essay aims to investigate and legitimate World War II by examining jus ad bellum's predominant principles – just cause, rightful authority and right intention, further by examining jus in bello's essential principle of non-combatant immunity and discrimination, and finally, looking closely at two peculiar moral events of closing days of World War II.
The jus ad bellum consisting of six principles: (i) the just cause, (ii) rightful authority to wage war, (iii) right intention, (iv) exhausting all other reasonable resolutions before waging war as last resort, (v) reasonable hope of state to win else they should not opt to wage war and (vi) proportional means of military force to objectives sought; of which first three are predominant both in the development of the theory and in its historical application as stated by Johnson.3 First, just cause evaluates the use of force as means of self-defence or defence of third party against wrongful attack and punishment of the acts against humanity. Second, rightful authority legitimises only states as rightful to wage wars not criminals, corporations or individuals who are deemed/seen illegitimate states Shapcott. And
References: Bibliography: 'annonymous ' (2001) 'ICISS ', The responsibility to protect, http://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asp Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens P. (eds) (2008), Shapcott, R.in 'The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Butler, M. J.(2003) 'U.S. Military Intervention in Crisis, 1945 ', The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(2): 226-248. Daddow, O. (2009) International Relations Theory, London: Sage. Hoekema, D. A. (2008) There Are No Just Wars, Ars Disputandi, 8: 126-145. Marlowe,M. D.(2001-2010) 'Sir Arthur Harris ', Bible Research (2001-2010) http://www.bible-researcher.com/dresden/harris.html Moseley, A Orend, B. (2005) 'War ' Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/war Orend, B Prazmowska, A. (1987) Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939 Cambridge University Press. Rengger, N. (2002) 'On the just war tradition in the twenty-first century ', International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 78(2): 353-363. Rodin, D. (2002) War and Self-defense, Oxford University Press. Walzer, M. (2004) ‘The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success)’ and 'Emergency Ethics ', Arguing About War, Yale University Press. Walzer, M. (2000) from 'Supreme Emergency ', Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/supreme_emergency_and_the_doctrine_of_just_warfare.html Williams Jr., R Bibliography: ‚annonymous‘ (2001) ‚ICISS‘, The responsibility to protect, http://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asp Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens P. (eds) (2008), Shapcott, R.in The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations, 4th edn Butler, M. J.(2003) ‚U.S. Military Intervention in Crisis, 1945‘, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(2): 226-248. Daddow, O. (2009) International Relations Theory, London: Sage. Hoekema, D. A. (2008) There Are No Just Wars, Ars Disputandi, 8: 126-145. Marlowe,M. D.(2001-2010) ‚Sir Arthur Harris‘, Bible Research (2001-2010) http://www.bible-researcher.com/dresden/harris.html Moseley, A Orend, B. (2005) ‚War‘ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/war Orend, B Prazmowska, A. (1987) Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939, Cambridge University Press. Rengger, N. (2002) ‚On the just war tradition in the twenty-first century‘, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 78(2): 353-363. Rodin, D. (2002) War and Self-defense, Oxford University Press. Walzer, M. (2004) ‘The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success)’ and ‚Emergency Ethics‘, Arguing About War, Yale University Press. Walzer, M. (2000) ‚Supreme Emergency‘, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/supreme_emergency_and_the_doctrine_of_just_warfare.html Williams Jr., R. E. (2009) book review of Fiala, A.’s The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War, Springer Science + Business Media B