This document outlines the principles of just war theory, which specifies conditions for determining whether going to war is just and how a war should be fought. It discusses two main categories: jus ad bellum, which covers the right to go to war, and jus in bello, regarding proper conduct in war. Under jus ad bellum are criteria like just cause, last resort, and proportionality. Jus in bello includes distinction between combatants and non-combatants, proportionality in attacks, and fair treatment of prisoners. The document examines how just war theory applies to issues like humanitarian intervention, the Iraq War, and terrorism.

1. Just War
TheoryIB Global Politics
UWC Costa Rica

2. What do you
think Just War
Theory is?

3. What do you
think Just War
Theory is?
Here’s a clue…

4. Just War Theory –
Michael Walzer

5. Just War Theory: The
Basics
Just War Theory specifies
conditions for judging if it
is just to go to war and
conditions for how the
war should be fought

6. Extensively developed by Christian
theologians - attempts to reconcile
three things
• Taking human life is seriously wrong
• States have a duty to defend their citizens,
and defend justice
• Protecting innocent human life and
defending important moral values
sometimes requires willingness to use
force and violence

7. How do we decide if a war is
just?
• Series of criteria – all of which must be
met if a war is to be considered just
• Criteria split into two categories:
– Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war)
– Jus in bello (the right conduct in war)

8. Jus ad bellum
• Just cause
• Comparative justice
• Competent authority
• Right intention
• Probability of success
• Last resort
• Proportionality

9. Jus ad bellum 1 – Just cause
• The reason for going to war needs to be just
and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing
things taken or punishing people who have
done wrong; innocent life must be in
imminent danger and intervention must be to
protect life
• "Force may be used only to correct a grave,
public evil, i.e., aggression or massive
violation of the basic human rights of whole
populations.”
(US Catholic Conference, 1993)

10. Jus ad bellum 2 – Comparative
justice
• While there may be rights and wrongs on
all sides of a conflict, to overcome the
presumption against the use of force, the
injustice suffered by one party must
significantly outweigh that suffered by the
other

11. Jus ad bellum 3 – Competent
authority
• Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war
• Dictatorships (i.e. Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military
actions (i.e. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically
considered as violations of this criterion.
• ‘The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot
have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system
that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must
be initiated by a political authority within a political system that
allows distinctions of justice’
Taken directly from
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html

12. Jus ad bellum 4 – Right
intention
• Force may be used only in a truly just
cause and solely for that purpose
• Correcting a suffered wrong is considered
a right intention, while material gain or
maintaining economies is not
• E.g. ceasefire at end of first Gulf War

13. Jus ad bellum 5 – Probability of
success
• Arms may not be
used in a futile cause
or in a case where
disproportionate
measures are
required to achieve
success

14. Jus ad bellum 6 – Last resort
• Force may be used only after all peaceful
and viable alternatives have been
seriously tried and exhausted or are
clearly not practical

15. Jus ad bellum 7 - Proportionality
• The anticipated benefits of waging a war
must be proportionate to its expected evils
or harms

16. Jus in bello
• Distinction
• Proportionality
• Military necessity
• Fair treatment of
prisoners of war
• No means malum in
se

17. Jus in bello 1 - Distinction
• Just war conduct should be governed by
the principle of distinction.
• The acts of war should be directed
towards enemy combatants, and not
towards non-combatants caught in
circumstances they did not create.

18. Jus in bello 2 - Proportionality
• Just war conduct should be governed by
the principle of proportionality
• Combatants must make sure that the harm
caused to civilians or civilian property is
not excessive in relation to the concrete
and direct military advantage anticipated
by an attack on a legitimate military
objective

19. Jus in bello 3 – military
necessity
• Just war conduct should be governed by
the principle of military necessity
• An attack or action must be intended to
help in the defeat of the enemy

20. Jus in bello 4 – Fair treatment of
POWs
• Enemy combatants who surrendered or
who are captured no longer pose a threat
• It is therefore wrong to torture them or
otherwise mistreat them

21. Jus in bello 5 - No means
malum in se
• This means wrong or evil in itself
• Combatants may not use weapons or
other methods of warfare that are
considered evil, such as mass rape,
forcing enemy combatants to fight against
their own side or using weapons whose
effects cannot be controlled (e.g.,
nuclear/biological weapons).

22. Just War and Humanitarian
Intervention

23. “We are in no position morally or
politically to do that. So would have
to be somebody else who went into
Darfur”
What does Walzer make this
claim?

24. Just War and Iraq

25. “We needed what Colin Powell called smart
sanctions, because the sanction system was
hurting ordinary Iraqi civilians, but there
should have been a way--and I have spoken
to some of the people who were running the
embargo who say there were ways--to deal
just with weapons and not to prevent food
and medicine from reaching the people”
Was the Iraq War a just war?
How does this relate to our understanding of
humanitarian intervention?

26. Just War and Terrorism

27. “It is the deliberate killing of people
who are known not to be
government employees,
government agents, soldiers,
police, the deliberate killing of
people like you and me”
Can terrorism ever be justified?