Subsequently, as stated in the last resort principle, reasonable alternatives and non-military means, such as political diplomacy, negotiations, economic sanctions, and legal adjudication, ought to be pursued and exhausted prior to resorting to military intervention (Brough, Lango & Linden 2007, p. 245; Higgins 2012). Minimally, States ought to employ reliable measures necessary to protect their citizens from any forms of aggression, as human rights is a pivotal factor in the conditions in resort to war. However, this principle has its limit. As signalled by the word ‘last’, it implies that war is the last option when all other conceivable alternatives failed. With the delay in decision making, as pointed out by Brough, Lango and Linden (2007),
…show more content…
However, as Kaldor (2008, cited in Iancu 2014, p. 347) noted, although the traditional Just War theory is flawed, it works as a significant guidance for States in making decisions whether to enter warfare, as its legitimacy derives from the rights of the individual, and not necessarily from the rights of states. On the whole, the Just War theory is similar to ‘a grammar for moral reflection and deliberation’ in the international relations traditions (Gregory 2014, p. 57). As remarked by Lee (2007, p. 3), the Just War theory outlines the rules and norms to control military violence and to limit aggression by establishing the norms of “moral permissibility”. The rationale for going to war is essentially not just a political judgement, but also a response towards the direction of a morally justifiable intervention, with an ethical objective. By this reference, the construction of the just war theory can be implied as a combination of paradigm shifts, which encompassed the evolutions of prudence and ethics in the field of politics, social issues and cultural traditions, influenced by the structure of international law (Murnion 2007, cited in Iancu 2014, p. 342). To conclude, this essay has discussed the conditions in which a war or an armed conflict would be recognised as a justified response. Generally, men yearn to live in peace with his fellow men. However, in cases where coexistence leads to conflicts, it must be emphasised that a war must be the last resort when all peaceful options have failed, and that the war prioritises human rights as the primary motive. Given the above, with a better knowledge of each other,
However, as Kaldor (2008, cited in Iancu 2014, p. 347) noted, although the traditional Just War theory is flawed, it works as a significant guidance for States in making decisions whether to enter warfare, as its legitimacy derives from the rights of the individual, and not necessarily from the rights of states. On the whole, the Just War theory is similar to ‘a grammar for moral reflection and deliberation’ in the international relations traditions (Gregory 2014, p. 57). As remarked by Lee (2007, p. 3), the Just War theory outlines the rules and norms to control military violence and to limit aggression by establishing the norms of “moral permissibility”. The rationale for going to war is essentially not just a political judgement, but also a response towards the direction of a morally justifiable intervention, with an ethical objective. By this reference, the construction of the just war theory can be implied as a combination of paradigm shifts, which encompassed the evolutions of prudence and ethics in the field of politics, social issues and cultural traditions, influenced by the structure of international law (Murnion 2007, cited in Iancu 2014, p. 342). To conclude, this essay has discussed the conditions in which a war or an armed conflict would be recognised as a justified response. Generally, men yearn to live in peace with his fellow men. However, in cases where coexistence leads to conflicts, it must be emphasised that a war must be the last resort when all peaceful options have failed, and that the war prioritises human rights as the primary motive. Given the above, with a better knowledge of each other,