Untitled

In the International Peace and Conflict Resolution field there are various theories regarding war, conflict, and violence; one of these is **Just War Theory**. In brief, Just War Theory states that there are a certain set of factors that need to be met in order for a war to be justified. This theory is divided into two main sections: *the right to go to war* and *right conduct within a war*. Within *the right to go to war*, which is the justification to enter into a conflict, there are conditions that must be met such as a just cause, the right intention, war being the last resort, and proportionality. And within *right conduct within a war*, which lays ground rules for those fighting, there are similar categories such as fair treatment of POWs and the banning of unethical weapons like nuclear bombs.

 

The problem with this theory is that war is inherently unethical and is never justified. This theory, promoted by ethicists and moral theologians, gives those that want to somehow justify horrendous actions an ethical argument. Wars are fought from what is called a *realist* perspective, much like a chess game is played, "us versus them", tactical moves, and an end with a clear victor.

 

Just War Theory also does not take into account the typical soldier psychology during war. Those fighting in wars, no matter what side they are fighting for, behave in unethical manners. This is not because those people are themselves unethical, it is because war itself is unethical.

 

>"A *just war* is hospitable to every self-deception on the part of those waging it, none more than the certainty of virtue, under whose shelter every abomination can be committed with a clear conscience."

> - *Alexander Cockburn*