Jus ad bellum

principles of jus ad bellum (“justice of war”) and jus in bello (“justice in war”) are the fundamental principles of the Just War Theory, which is the military ethical doctrine that justifies the reasons and methods of war. Each principle has a set of criteria that must be met in order for the act of war and conduct in war to be considered morally justifiable. Ethicists and historians question whether the use of the nuclear bombs in Japan met the necessary and reasonable criteria of the jus ad…

objections to the act that do not relate to the value of the military aim. These objections function as side constraints on the pursuit of the military aim. Proportionality is a principle, then, that relates jus in bello principles to jus ad bellum assessments. Without an independent jus in bello, there would be no such thing as the principle of…

Assess the contemporary coherence of the just war tradition. Realists describe war as an inevitable outcome of the anarchical international system in which states interact with each other. Based on this premise, throughout the centuries, has been witnessed the flourishing of a tradition of thought focusing on the ethics of war: The Just War Tradition. Its central hypothesis is that the use of force can be morally justified, or in other words that war can be morally right. This view differs from…

circumstances surrounding a potential international intervention to depose the North Korean regime to the principles of just war articulated in Seyom Brown’s The Just War Tradition, we can evaluate whether such an intervention would be just. If the ad bellum “just cause” justifications for war were the only metric for deciding the justice of an intervention in North Korea, then the war would certainly be just. But the resulting massive loss of life and probable inability of coalition forces to…

war theories jus ad bellum and jus in bello (Brimlow, p. 39). Jus ad bellum is “a set of rules for going to war” and jus in bello “outline the constraints on the means a country at war may employ to reach its justified end or goal” (Brimlow, pp. 39-40). Personally, I don’t think I am capable of truly deciding if going to war is justifiable, but I do think I can understand, somewhat, if our military is acting in a justifiable way during a war. When I think of most wars, I think that jus in bello…

prevent potential evil actions happening in our world. One could determine the morality of President Obama’s military actions by applying the Just War Theory — the doctrine that war be morally permissible under stipulated conditions. — into Jus Ad Bellum theories. In the first theory, “The cause must be just”, the order meets the condition because the action was taken in respect…

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…

The Just Conduct in War or "Jus in Bello," is a concept of Just War Theory that aims to limit the actions of war, to provide international rules that guarantee justice and rights combatants, prisoners, civilians and their goods in conflicts. The genesis of this concept was mentioned by Francisco de Vittoria, considered the father of public international law, who postulated that the war should be strictly limited for the most disadvantaged, as Nardin (P.60) pointed out: “Vittoria insist that war…

longer are committing acts of war but rather acts of murder. The whole idea is for agents of war to be responsible for their actions. The second criteria is that the tactics used must be in proportion to the injury being addressed. Just like with “Jus ad bellum” there are questions that exist concerning each of these rules. How does one determine the proportionality of the injury being addressed? More than a million Tutsi should have received no harm then if this rule was followed as they were…

original theory itself was believed to possess flawed ethical arguments; the Walzer’s just war theory of doctrine of military ethics explicitly indicates the independence between the two fundamental principles, the just cause for war (jus ad bellum) and just conduct in war (jus in bello), but the revisionist McMahan believes the moral equality does not apply to both just and unjust combatants equally due to the belief that there is symmetry between the two principles. I argue that the ideas of…