The solution of using moral and legislative means to produce ethical solutions has been used by many to resolve civil conflicts throughout history. In the early 13th century, a man named St. Thomas Aquinas created what is now known as just war theory: the framework behind nearly all theories of intervention and war. The theory aims to determine the conditions under which a war should be waged (jus ad bellum), how it should be waged (jus In bello), and the justice of what happens after the war (jus post bellum). The mix of deontological and moral reasoning creates a set of generally accepted criteria among people considering waging war or engaging in intervention. Before fully analyzing the effects of just war theory on the political landscape it is necessary to understand what effects just war theory is actually influencing. Humanitarian intervention occurs when a country reports human rights violations and intervenes militarily to prevent their spread. The question that remains after reporting human rights violations is when to implement large-scale interventions (the other option is to suffer the consequences of not intervening). These are still some of the most important global political issues we currently face. Furthermore, to truly measure the success of implementing just war theory we must understand what war is, what are the causes of war, and is war morally justifiable? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay On a superficial level there are two main groups of belief systems among followers of just war theory. One is traditionalism and the other is revisionism. Traditionalists choose to focus on creating a moral foundation based on practical international law, while revisionists believe that legislation lacks deeper moral complexity and that we should instead focus exclusively on moral beliefs and judge the ethical applications of just war theory case by case. Upon closer examination, revisionists question the morality of institutions and also argue for an expansion of the reasons for intervention and declaration of war. Revisionists believe that the best thing fighters fighting for the wrong causes can do is to stop fighting for that cause altogether. In contrast, traditionalists believe, largely for pragmatic reasons, that there is no real reason for change in our current institutions (no need for significant reforms in the status quo). Within the revisionist and traditionalist sects of just war theory there are drastically different ways that people approach the definition of war. The first group of individuals, the institutionalists, believe that the primary goal of philosophers should be to identify what the institutions that govern war should be. This means creating morally justifiable rules to implement and then enforcing them by informing individuals and groups that these rules are what is “morally justifiable”. On the other hand, the interactional approach dictates that we should get rid of institutions entirely and focus instead on what is morally justifiable for those groups and individuals. Instead of starting with the creation of institutions, the interactional approach focuses on interactions with individuals and groups. Generally, indirect consequentialists and people who believe in social contract theory dothey side with the institutional approach rather than the interactional approach. The reason for this lies in their own ideologies. Social contract theorists believe that hypothetical contract theory specifies the terms of interaction in war for their citizens through institutions, while indirect consequentialists think that institutions will have a greater long-term impact (consequence) and create significantly better outcomes compared to the alternative solution. Using hypothetical and historical cases we can clinically conduct trials to isolate variables and test provisional explanations in practice. The second division between revisionists and traditionalists is between reductivists and non-reductivists. Reductivists believe that killing during the period of war should be justified in the same way that killing outside of war is due to the nature of the similar outcome (the end of a human life). Non-reductivists believe that the circumstances in which war takes place allow for exceptions to be made regarding killing during a period of war. The sum of these ideologies was combined to create a set of principles according to which it is ethical to wage war (jus ad bellum). These principles are as follows: just cause, legitimate authority, reasonable prospects of success, just intention, last resort and proportionality. Just cause means that the group or institution engaging in an act of war must avoid possible harm, and legitimate authority is a rule that states that the group engaging in war must have legitimate authority to do so. Furthermore, a reasonable prospect of success means that the war should be likely to achieve its objectives, the right intention ensuring that no ulterior motives are present when an institution imposes its ideals. Proportionality is based on utilitarianism and states that the good must outweigh the harm caused by war or intervention, and finally the rule of last resort ensures that there are no other reasonable alternatives that have been exhausted before military engagement. Aside from the circumstances under which it is appropriate to wage war or mount an intervention, jus in bello are the ethical criteria for how to wage war or mount an intervention after meeting the criteria for pursuing that course of action. The set of rules is as follows: Discrimination: Fighters should not kill innocent civilians and should instead focus only on armed fighters. Proportionality: The amount of force we use in a conflict should be judged by the just cause rule and limited by the just cause rule. rule of intention from jus ad bellum. Accountability: Each institution is solely responsible for its own actions. The accountability rule specifically deals with punishment when blatant violations of power occur or war crimes are committed. When the negative effects of combat or intervention were unintended, if the good done by the war outweighs the bad, and the action had good intentions, then the negative impacts are morally tolerated, then they can be exempted from this rule. The objectives of jus in bello are aimed at preventing non-combatant casualties, it is not possible to completely abolish civilian casualties because some soldiers and generals believe that in war “anything goes”. While this is a somewhat valid opinion to hold, just war theory, particularly jus in bello, states that any action deemed excessive (e.g. killing civilians without provocation or excessive force outside of what is given to them commanded) is considered unacceptable and deserves a trial (according to theory, of course, international law and then thatnational set a precedent). Specifically, Jus in bello believes that killing civilians is similar to murder in a normal situation. This means that people who carry out unjust actions are responsible even if they were instructed by a superior. In essence, even if the superior ordered the unjust act, he did not commit it and as such should not be punished for it. These criteria serve as a general guideline for morally permissible conduct in war, and while there is no initiative to turn such rules into law, initiatives to enforce policy in places of political power have continued since their inception. Having deciphered when it is acceptable to engage in war or intervention and discuss moral action in a war context, I think it is equally important to talk about jus post bellum, or justice after war. Jus post bellum is currently a theoretical concept and although the ideas continue to be discussed, they are technically not included in the mainstream ideas of just war theory. The first time jus ad bellum and jus in bello were discussed was in a Christian context (as the ideas of just war theory are primarily rooted in Christian theological beliefs), and after researching various modern Christian scholars there were some with ideas about the jus post bellum that stood out. Michael Schuck published an article in Christian Century Magazine in which he stated that the 3 characteristics of jus post bellum should be repentance, honorable surrender, and restoration (whether the ultimate goal of war is to restore peace or end the conflict in a specific region in a religious context). . More detailed principles were developed later by people like Brian Orend who wrote "jus post bellum", the Journal of Social Philosophy and was a catalyst in introducing jus post bellum into the debate stage. Its seven principles of jus post bellum outline a way to de-escalate conflict appropriately: Compensation – Financial compensation may be provided to assist in rebuilding infrastructure or for war damages. Punishment - Social and political leaders of the victorious and losing sides should be tried for their war crimes, if any. Reform: Reform any regressive or antagonistic institution in an aggressive regime. Discrimination: Distinctions need to be made between leaders, soldiers and civilians as civilians should be excluded from post-war efforts. (e.g. They should not face war crimes as non-combatants). Proportionality and publicity - Peace talks should be public and reasonable. Claiming Rights - The original agreement should guarantee fundamental rights for those who the intervention or war took place as a result of. Similarly, another prominent writer and veteran Louis V. Iaseillo believes that there should be a different set of criteria for justice after war: Keep in mind: this is just one example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get Custom EssayA Healing Mindset - If the purpose of war is to resolve conflict, then a healing mindset after the conflict has been physically resolved is imperative. Safeguard the innocent - similar to the jus in bello discrimination rule, the distinction between attacking civilians and combatantsReset Only - Is vital to stabilizing the region after your engagement. This includes rebuilding the infrastructure that provides basic necessities to those who need them. Justice: Trying war criminals for their crimes to the extent deemed appropriate for their crimes. Louis finds this step particularly vital,.