Strengths and Weaknesses of Just War Theory

Created by: B.B.Revision
Created on: 23-02-24 11:58


	Strengths and Weaknesses of Just War Theory
	Advantages There are limits of the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction as they are, by nature, disproportionate and indiscriminate The Jus ad Bellum principle of war as a last resort supports Natural Law ideas about the preservation of life and the ordering of society, and promotes diplomacy and treaties above violence It affirms the equal worth of all human beings through the prohibition of means that are "mala in se" such as genocide or ethnic cleansing as a principle of Jus in Bello and the distinction between those who are appropriate and inappropriate targets during a war It can be accepted from a utilitarian perspective as it consequentially considers the effects of war on all people, particularly through the principle of proportionality in Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum It sets a high standard for governments to act to, preventing them from simply seeking their own nation's interests It is a universal theory and its principles are acknowledged by most states. This gives weight to international law and allows those who commit war crimes to be held to account	Disadvantages There could be disagreement over what constitutes a just authority. Today only the UN is supposed to declare war but when they have failed to do so, such as with the Rwandan Genocide, other authorities have stepped in instead (NATO). Oppressed minorities are also arguably left defenceless, as they don't have the right, according to JWT to fight against the government Sometimes leaving war to a last resort has worse consequences, such as in the run up to WW2, where states kept making treaties with Hitler, despite his breaking of previous ones. This arguably led to the war going on for longer and more lives being lost A Utilitarian or Situation Ethicist would not believe that anything is "mala in se" so would have no reason to prohibit means such as genocide or ethnic cleansing in Bello It is difficult to judge the consequences of methods pre, during and post war Due to the principle of no reprisals in Bello, it is very difficult for states to resist conflict with those who do not keep to Just War principles, as they cannot retaliate when the other side violates Jus in Bello by violating it themselves
	Evaluation Just War Theory provides universal guidance as to when one can go to war and arguably sets the standards quite high and, in the original form St Augustine gave it, war was supposed to be a last resort, the lesser of two evils and never a cause for celebration, but a cause for lament. If followed correctly, it promotes peace and diplomacy and would thus be successful. However, not all states adhere to this framework and the benefit of hindsight has shown us that delaying an inevitable conflict can result in more harm than good. For Just War Theory to be successful, it has to be adhered to by all parties, but this is rarely the case as, if it were, there would rarely be any reason to go to war in the first place. However, it is perhaps better to have Just War Theory in place on principle, even if it is not always adhered to, as it creates a standard and allows war criminals to be punished justly for their actions.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Just War Theory

Advantages

There are limits of the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction as they are, by nature, disproportionate and indiscriminate
The Jus ad Bellum principle of war as a last resort supports Natural Law ideas about the preservation of life and the ordering of society, and promotes diplomacy and treaties above violence
It affirms the equal worth of all human beings through the prohibition of means that are "mala in se" such as genocide or ethnic cleansing as a principle of Jus in Bello and the distinction between those who are appropriate and inappropriate targets during a war
It can be accepted from a utilitarian perspective as it consequentially considers the effects of war on all people, particularly through the principle of proportionality in Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum
It sets a high standard for governments to act to, preventing them from simply seeking their own nation's interests
It is a universal theory and its principles are acknowledged by most states. This gives weight to international law and allows those who commit war crimes to be held to account

Disadvantages

There could be disagreement over what constitutes a just authority. Today only the UN is supposed to declare war but when they have failed to do so, such as with the Rwandan Genocide, other authorities have stepped in instead (NATO). Oppressed minorities are also arguably left defenceless, as they don't have the right, according to JWT to fight against the government
Sometimes leaving war to a last resort has worse consequences, such as in the run up to WW2, where states kept making treaties with Hitler, despite his breaking of previous ones. This arguably led to the war going on for longer and more lives being lost
A Utilitarian or Situation Ethicist would not believe that anything is "mala in se" so would have no reason to prohibit means such as genocide or ethnic cleansing in Bello
It is difficult to judge the consequences of methods pre, during and post war
Due to the principle of no reprisals in Bello, it is very difficult for states to resist conflict with those who do not keep to Just War principles, as they cannot retaliate when the other side violates Jus in Bello by violating it themselves

Evaluation

Just War Theory provides universal guidance as to when one can go to war and arguably sets the standards quite high and, in the original form St Augustine gave it, war was supposed to be a last resort, the lesser of two evils and never a cause for celebration, but a cause for lament. If followed correctly, it promotes peace and diplomacy and would thus be successful. However, not all states adhere to this framework and the benefit of hindsight has shown us that delaying an inevitable conflict can result in more harm than good. For Just War Theory to be successful, it has to be adhered to by all parties, but this is rarely the case as, if it were, there would rarely be any reason to go to war in the first place. However, it is perhaps better to have Just War Theory in place on principle, even if it is not always adhered to, as it creates a standard and allows war criminals to be punished justly for their actions.

Get Revising

Strengths and Weaknesses of Just War Theory