success of just war theory

STRENGTH: moral framework for war

• realism might allow for acts of genocide, rape, torture, and the possible use of biochemical or nuclear weapons in order to win a war.

• The Just War principles at least prevent these kinds of excesses from taking place.

• Michael Walzer, a prominent defender of JWT, argues that it offers a way to hold political and military leaders accountable by insisting war must meet specific moral criteria

• Walzer contends that JWT enables societies to balance the harsh realities of warfare with moral obligations, especially to minimize harm to civilians and limit unnecessary suffering.

COUNTER to moral framework: moral idealism vs realism

• Despite its historical significance, Just War Theory is criticized for being overly idealistic and disconnected from the moral reality of modern warfare.

• Jeff McMahan, a leading critic of JWT, challenges its central premise of moral equality of combatants—the idea that soldiers on both sides of a conflict can fight justly if they follow jus in bello, regardless of the justice of their cause.

• McMahan argues that this premise is fundamentally flawed, as it morally equates aggressors with defenders. In Killing in War, he claims this moral symmetry legitimizes unjust wars by shielding aggressors from blame as long as they follow the rules of war

• WT fails to account for the complex political and ethical realities of asymmetric warfare, where non-state actors (e.g., insurgents, freedom fighters) often lack access to "legitimate authority" but may still have just causes

STRENGTH: supports humanitarian intervention

• potential to justify humanitarian intervention in cases of gross human rights violations, such as genocide or ethnic cleansing.

• Brian Orend, in The Morality of War, argues that JWT provides the moral grounding necessary to intervene in another state’s internal affairs when doing so prevents mass atrocities.

• The criterion of just cause within jus ad bellum has evolved in modern JWT to include not only self-defence but also the protection of innocent lives.

• Orend supports the idea that sovereignty is not absolute; it can be overridden when a state fails in its primary duty to protect its citizens. In this sense, JWT aligns with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine adopted by the United Nations in the early 21st century. When states abuse their own populations, they forfeit their moral claim to non-intervention.

• Moreover, the theory’s insistence on right intention, last resort, and proportionality ensures that interventions are not simply acts of imperialism or opportunism

COUNTER to humanitarian justification

• While Just War Theory offers a framework for humanitarian intervention, critics like David Rodin argue that the concept is too easily manipulated by powerful states to justify neo-colonialism or regime change under the guise of moral duty.

• A major issue lies in the ambiguity of the just cause criterion. Who decides what constitutes a humanitarian crisis severe enough to justify war? Without a universally accepted authority to adjudicate such matters, decisions are often made unilaterally by powerful nations with strategic interests. The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, initially framed as a humanitarian effort to protect civilians, quickly escalated into regime change with long-term destabilizing consequences. Critics argue that this violates the right intention and proportionality components of Just War Theory.

WEAKNESS: realism

• thucydides argues that policy in wartime/ battlefield actions cannot be guided by ideals and morals

• this is bc countries act to serve their own self-interests and will therefore ruthelessly exploit any weaknesses shown by an enemy

• so the principle of going to war as a last resort might mean that the enemy is allowed too much time to get stronger

• e.g. had the invasion of iraq not taken place in 2003, saddam hussein could have gone on to develop weapons of mass destruction even if he was not already in possession of them

application of iraq: last resort

• Although fought to get rid of an evil dictator (Saddam Hussein) who was allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the head of the UN Inspection Team, Hans Blix, who was tasked with finding the weapons said that war was declared before he had a chance to complete the inspection process.

• And no WMD’s were ever found.

• So the war does not seem to have been fought as a Last Resort

WEAKNESS: lack of application/ practicality

It could be argued that there has never been a war in which the rules for a just war have been followed. For example, WW2 is thought of as being a justifiable war but civilians in the German city of Dresden were firebombed simply to terrorise them and atomic bombs were eventually dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

application of iraq: legitimate authority

• The invasion was itself was carried out by a coalition of governments (including the US and UK)

• it did not have the approval of the UN and therefore could be said to have broken the principle of Legitimate Authority in that possible respect.

application of iraq: right intention

Critics of the war claimed that it had really been fought to secure Iraqi oil wealth, which means that the principles of Just Cause and Right intention were not observed

application of iraq: just cause

• No links between Hussein’s Baathist administration and al-Qaeda were ever uncovered, which undermines the additional Just Cause for the invasion as being part of a wider war on terror

• also accusations that war was fought to secure oil wealth

application of iraq: proportionality

As Saddam Hussein had not attacked any of the countries who invaded Iraq, the principle of Proportionality was arguably not maintained

application of iraq: jus in bello + discrimination

there were many civilian casualties, so Discrimination does not seem to have taken place.

application of iraq: jus in bello + humanity

Additionally, Iraqi prisoners were found to have been subsequently mistreated and tortured by US soldiers, so that the principle of Humanity was not upheld

application of iraq: chances of success

The conflict continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the coalition forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government. US troops were officially withdrawn in 2011, so the person who predicted success was obviously wrong

overall evaluation of application of iraq

Given that the invasion was then followed by an occupation, insurgency and civil war, and eventually resulted in the rise of ISIS, events which also caused further civilian loss of life on a huge scale, the invasion of Iraq serves as an illustration – not of the failure of the theory to work in practice – but rather of what can happen when Just War maxims are not observed