The document discusses whether war can ever be morally justified according to just war theory. It outlines the main principles of just war theory, including jus ad bellum (justice of resorting to war), jus in bello (just conduct during war), and jus post bellum (justice after war). It also discusses views like realism that are skeptical of applying moral concepts like justice to war. According to just war theory, a war can only be just if it meets criteria like having a just cause, being declared officially and as a last resort, having a reasonable chance of success, and using proportional force.

1. Can war be just?
Political philosophy

2. War attacks people rights to life, security, peace,
and liberty. Just war theory suggests that under
certain conditions it is possible to be be morally
justified.
1) Jus ad bellum – the justice of resorting to war.
2) Jus in bello – just conduct in war
3) Jus post bellum – justice at the end of the war.
Realism – moral concepts cant be applied to war.
Pacifism – war is never morally justified.

3. Supposedly the following six things make war just. (1-3 are
deontological, 4-6 try to secure the best outcomes).
1) There must be a just reason, e.g. self defence, protection
from aggressive regimes – but this can be argued as to what
would count as just.
It’s also possible to argue that you need a legitimate state for a war to
be just by cause – it must not violate rights of other legitimate
states and must respect the basic rights of the citizens within its
own state.
2) There must be the right intentions to fight.
3) The decision must be made by the right authorities with
public declaration.
4) War must be the last resort.
5) It is just if the state can see a probability of success –
violence without potential gain is unjust.
6) War must be proportionate – the end must justify the means.

4. Justice in war – concerned with the treatment of
the enemy.
1) Weapons prohibited must not be used.
2) Only combatants may be targeted (some argue
it’s wrong to target combatants, as only
minimum use of force is legitimate).
3) Proportional force must be used.
4) Prisoners of war must be treated well – they’re
no longer a threat.
5) No weapons of means of war that are ‘evil in
themselves’
6) Not justified in breaking these in response to
the enemy breaking the rules.

5. 1) Violated rights should be secured after the
war.
2) Declaration of peace must be public by the
proper authority.
3) Proportionality governs the peace
settlement.
4) Public, international trials for war crimes
should be conducted.

6. Realism - objects to justice applying in the state only – states
act in terms of self-interest.
Descriptive realism – states aren’t motivated by justice – but by
the national interest, power and security. Individuals have
concern with justice, in turn states must.
Prescriptive realism –The state should bear in mind the theory
of just war so long as it interests the state in the best way.
Pacifism – war is always unjust. War doesn’t need to be the
response to aggression – there are less destructive just as
effective ways (Ghandi).
War may be the only means to resist, and so can be justified.

7. War involves violating our duties – if we accept
that war isn’t just, but necessary, we adopt a
realist view, not a just war theory.
Do we violate our duties?
Most would say – we should be allowed to kill if
our own life is being threatened.
If A attacks B, its unfair for A to gain – it’s
wrong to stop B resisting A. But the force
must be proportionate.
Another option can’t be available for this to be
just. It has to be the completely last resort.

8. Two sides differ in resources or tactics.
Asymmetric wars are revolutionary (trying to
overthrow/secede from political authority) – for this
to be just cause political authority needs to be
illegitimate.
Asymmetric wars – two changes to just war theory: if
there can be just wars where one side isn’t a state,
the declaration doesn’t need to be made by proper
authority and means that the oppressed has the right
to resist the oppressive state, even if they’re unlikely
to succeed.
Right to self defence doesn’t depend on my success.

9. In most asymmetric wars one side is stronger –
greater military.
Jus ad bellum – the force that’s justifiable is
proportionate to the harm being threatened –
but it may be necessary for one side to use
harm that isn’t proportional in order to
succeed.