THE JUST WAR CRITERIA

Among true worshipers of God those wars are looked on as peacemaking which are waged neither from aggrandizement nor cruelty but with the object of securing peace, of repressing the evil and supporting the good. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia II, II, ae, 40, 1.

Brief Introduction

The just-war tradition consists of a body of ethical reflection on the justifiable use of force. In the interest of overcoming injustice, reducing violence and preventing its expansion, the tradition aims at:

(a) clarifying when force may be used,
(b) limiting the resort to force and
(c) restraining damage done by military forces during war.

The just-war tradition begins with a strong presumption against the use of force and then establishes the conditions when this presumption may be overridden for the sake of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights.

In a disordered world, where peaceful resolution of conflicts sometimes fails, the just-war tradition provides an important moral framework for restraining and regulating the limited use of force by governments. The components of the Just War criteria are divided into two sections: Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello.

I. Jus ad Bellum, whether lethal force may be used is governed by the following criteria, these criteria, taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force.

bulletJust Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations; obviously force may be used in self-defense or to pre-empt an anticipated attack.

bulletLegitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society deems legitimate.

bulletRight Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. The ultimate goal or intention of the use of force is to re-establish peace, specifically a peace that is preferable to the peace that would have prevailed had the war not been fought. Nations must take care in answering the question—When does right intention separate itself from self-interest?

bulletProbability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause, there must be a reasonable chance of success. This is not always an easy answer, i.e., It may be necessary to stand up to a much stronger military power, as the Finns did when Russia invaded in 1940, for the sake national self-esteem.

bulletProportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved; a nation cannot go to war without considering the effect of its action on others and on the international community.

bulletLast Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.


II. Jus in Bello, the just-war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards for the conduct of armed conflict:

bulletDiscrimination or Noncombatant Immunity: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians; the deaths of civilians are only justifiable only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. There is often disagreement on who is and who is not a civilian.

bulletProportionality: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property.

... courtesy of WS, 11/26

 (Top)  (Home)