The Just War Theory

In order for war activities to meet the requirements of fair war theory, it is necessary for the legal system to implement justice to call for action. These systems strengthen accountability between parties to war and manage the overall cost, effectiveness and possibilities of war. Although this requirement is ideally noble, it relies on unauthorized assumption of authority. Legal authority may support war, but intent may simply conflict with other aspects of war theory.

Historians and philosophers formed the theory of war just for centuries. However, the most systematic description of the theory of justice war was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologicae. According to the theory of war of justice, the moral reality of war can be divided into two parts. War was judged twice. The first visit refers to the reasons of domestic battle, and the second time refers to the means used in the actual battle. (Walzer, 21) The first verdict was called jus ad bellum, or justice. The second sentence is called a wartime trial, or justice in war. Jus ad bellum provides guidelines for assessing whether war is fair or unfair but wartime rules outline the correct behavior in warfare. Jus ad bellum does not mean jus in battle. Likewise, jus in battle does not need jus ad bellum. Justice warfare may be done unfairly so that it is possible to fight legitimate warfare.

Only war theory and law distinguish between reason (jus ad bellum) relying on war and rational behavior in war (jus in war). Most statements of the theory of justice warfare have four principles, each with its own label. Rational hope for justification, legal authority, right intent, necessity or final means, proportionality and success There are three principles in rule of war: three types of discrimination, necessity or minimum force, and Proportionality. These principles represent a comprehensive understanding of the morality of war, in a compressed form that is 300 years ago and the basic structure is almost the same. Since it develops synchronously with the state system based legal system, not the individual, its existing form theory is very different from the classical theory it belongs to.