The Just War Theory

Media and war justice The war theory has some moral content, but its nature and application has important practicality. Both sides of the war want to claim that their cause is fair. They set war goals as "justice" to gain the support of the people and the international community. Even the shoguns will predict the fairness of the war and let the soldiers fight the enemies for a longer time. Therefore, "justice" or "righteousness" of war is important for any military intervention.

Historians and philosophers formed the theory of war just for centuries. But the most systematic description of the theory of war of justice 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. Justification, legal authority, right intent, need or last resort, reasonable hope for proportionality and success. The rule of war contains three principles: discrimination, necessity or minimum force, and proportionality. These principles express comprehensible understanding of the morality of war, in a compressed form that the basic structure is almost the same as 300 years ago. 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.