There are a number of ways people attempt to justify war. Some are realists while others are pacifists; however, today, I will talk about those who abide by the Just War Theory. The Just War theory attempts to limit causes of war and it does so by setting forth a kind of guideline. This theory includes two basic principles: principles that need to be satisfied to be in a war, or Jus ad Bellum,  and  principles that govern the actions during or of a war, or Jus in Bello. Mackinnon and Fiala provide a quote from former President Barack Obama that I find explains the theory well: “The concept of a ‘just war’ emerged suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions are met: it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.” (534) With that being said, do the components of a Just War theory, Jus ad bellum and jus in bello, clarify when and if using lethal force is justifiable? Could anything justify the use of lethal force?

We will begin with a look at the two properties individually; First, Jus ad bellum, which translates to “Justness of going to war.” This property comprises five elements. The first element is known as Just Cause. This states that a war must have a “just cause” and not be a response to a simple insult or miscommunication. This element has its issues that make it more difficult to determine what is a just cause. For starters, it allows for defending against an invader, but what about a preemptive attack to protect against one in the future? If Russia were to think, no matter how certain, that America was planning and plotting an attack on them, so Russia attacks America first, is it just? Is humanitarian intervention a just cause? Do other countries have a humanitarian right to storm Israel and Gaza to stop the slaughter of children and civilians? Is it just to, in a sense, put your nose in their business? Was it just to start a war that lasted decades for oil? Next is the element of legitimate authority -- who can declare war? This was a non-issue when we had a monarchical system, but how do we determine which person is allowed to start a thing in which so many people die? Should a civilian president be allowed to make such a call? Should we default to “professionals of war” like the military? Furthermore, a question of proportionality is the next element. The goodness to come out of the war must outweigh the badness created by the war. This is commonly thought of in terms of death and destruction, but where is the line? What’s the invisible line that separates an appropriate and inappropriate amount of death and destruction? How does this calculation differ from the upset around non-peaceful protests? The final elements are Last Resort and Right Intention. Last resort states that you must attempt every other avenue before war. This might look like negotiations, communications, or trading; however, our textbook provides ‘threats’ as another avenue to venture before war, and I find threats to be almost like war foreplay. I think threats are almost certain to lead to war, but then again, I’m not actively participating in these things so I’m guessing.

Next, we will look at the attributes of Jus in Bello, principles that govern conduct in war. This principle is constituted of a few elements which are strikingly similar to those for Jus ad bellum. Proportionality is the first. The good must outweigh the bad. Again, this is commonly seen in terms of death and destruction; however, we can also see this in terms of the mental health of the soldiers. It is not rare that soldiers return home with enormous mental health issues, namely Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and at this point, we as a country and society don’t have a very good grasp on mental health and how to de-stigmatize, treat, and better such things. On top of that, most of these soldiers are men, less today than in the past but still, men are more reluctant to seek help or be seen as weak and vulnerable, especially a macho-soldier type man, and this ultimately leads to these suffering soldiers to resort to suicide. This is a terrible occurrence that I find to be far from proportionate. How can we not do more to care for those actively fighting for us to be comfortable in our homes? Moving forward, there is a principle of discrimination: how to determine who is a combatant and a noncombatant? It’s common practice to keep civilians protected from the violence of war, those who are not participating in the war, but the question of participation is where the issue expands. Is a hospital fair game? Even if a child is there? Where is the line drawn in the sand in reference to collateral damage? How much collateral damage is “allowed” before we accept it as a bad thing and unjust? The final principle is intrinsically evil means. This is referring to things like torture and slavery and even rape used as a weapon. These things are unjust, and to use them in a war makes the war unjust as well.

Now that we have the lay of the land and understand what Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello are and their elements, let’s discuss if this actually clarifies when lethal force is justified, or even if lethal force is justified. We’ve briefly brushed some issues regarding the elements, but now we will dive a little deeper into them.  First, let’s circle back to the issues surrounding a Just cause for Jus ad bellum. Is it justifiable to preemptively strike? There’s debate surrounding this idea and the idea that waiting for a strike is too late to strike back, so preemptive is just. However, when discussing something as serious as war, how can you be 100% before a preemptive strike? What if you’re wrong about your assumption and end up starting a war for nothing? How do we go about humanitarian intervention? I accept that it is a necessity to protect others as well as ourselves, and this extends to other countries as well. I believe it is important for us to stop evil if and when we see it; however, is it just? Would America be just in going to war with Israel to protect those in Gaza? We certainly agree that America would be just if they had reacted more quickly to the holocaust. Is it just for America to occupy countries or attempt to forcefully spread democratic ideals? Again I ask, is it just to stick or nose in other’s business? I think it is. However, I don’t know how to dictate what is okay and what isn’t. There is so much gray area and different variables make differences to circumstances -- I don’t know how anyone can classify something as one thing or another so easily. Furthermore, who has the authority to declare war? This is one that I take big issue with. I don’t know what to do about it, obviously, but I don’t think ‘civilians’ should be able to cavalierly declare war but I also don’t see soldiers as “war professionals.” Coming from a rural high school, I remember how hard joining the military after high school was pushed. I see the preying nature on those of us who might not have money for college or hopes for being rich. Joining the military is used as an escape for many in bad situations as well, so how can these individuals be deemed War Professionals for wearing a uniform? Are you a war professional if you invaded for oil? Are you a war professional if you killed a dictator? Who determines professional status? Laymens? The issues are endless. There is no perfect way to go about war, in which people and children die and cities, communities, and societies are destroyed.

In conclusion, war resides in a gray area of life. There is no one way to go about doing it, or avoiding it, or even justifying it. In fact, there is no way, in my opinion, to actually justify war. There are good aspects and bad aspects to war, but to justify it feels like a stretch to me. At the end of the day, no matter what is being threatened or discussed, people are dying. It boils down to caring more about “our people” and “their people” but we are all people. We are all lives at risk when war is being discussed and I’m not sure there are clear cut reasons to ignore that fact. Protecting yourself is one thing, but only, in my opinion, if there is 100% certainty that there is a danger of a strike or violence. There is value in human life, life at all, and war does not take that into account, not even the Just War Theory. Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello takes a stab at attempting to justify war, but at the end of the day I just don’t think you can.