Just War Theory analyzes all aspects of why and how war should be waged and fought. Just war was discussed in Europe as early as Cicero, and there are several other texts in other civilizations with similar discourses, such as the Mahabharata in India and an Islamic system of war and peace based on the Quran. Just war theory is an attempt to have realistic expectations of human nature and the inevitability of conflict while maintaining reasonable expectations of human interaction. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay The term “just war” was first used by Cicero (106-43), who claimed that it There is no good war. unless fought in self-defense, whether physical or honorable. During Cicero's time, Rome entered into NATO-like alliances with other regions, to the point that it was constantly at war. Cicero was very critical of Julius Caesar because he believed his love of power was destroying the republic. This is the first time we have heard that war is only just if it is publicly declared by a valid source. In this situation, that source would be the Senate, as opposed to the will of the soul of a dictator such as Julius Caesar. Cicero also states that war is acceptable only after monetary reparations have been demanded from the offending state. These two guidelines set a precedent for later theories.St. Augustine (354-430 AD) was alive at a time when Rome was falling and the world that had been established by Rome was rapidly being conquered. This led Augustine to reflect on how the pagan Roman way of waging war was not right and how to participate in war without compromising the moral integrity of an individual or state. His theory was that war could be morally justified if it aimed to create peace for both the offensive and defensive parties. His thinking led to the development of the terms “Jus Ad Bellum” and “Jus in Bello”. These Latin terms refer to justified reasons for waging war and right ways to behave in war. Augustine initiated the discussion to incorporate a Christian approach to warfare. He argued that there were ethical reasons to engage in combat and that there were times when it was ethical for Christians to be soldiers provided they conducted themselves in a manner expected achieve a positive result. Centuries later, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) developed Augustine's theories by giving criteria for Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. In a Europe surrounded by attacks from the Middle East and reeling from the Crusades of the 13th century, Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" provided reasoning for several questions concerning God and an individual's relationship through action with God, including very distinct criteria for how to morally engage in war. While several philosophers continued the tradition of religious ethical speculation, it was not until the book "Laws of War and Peace" by the philosopher Hugo Grotius (1583-1645 AD) during the 30 Years' War that these theories came out of theoretical contexts. in the legal field. Jus Ad Bellum, as mentioned, is the right to wage war. To go to war justly, the decision must be made by a valid legal system capable of discussing and weighing the pros and cons of war. In the presentation provided by Thomas Aquinas, there are specific criteriawhich must be met to define a just war. There must be a wrong committed against the state to which war is an appropriate response, and it is important not to be the catalyst for starting a war until a wrong has been done to you by another . The intention of war must be only to redress the wrong committed against the state and nothing more. There must be a significant probability that you will win the war and therefore not allow your soldiers to be killed without any chance of success. Finally, war must be the absolute last resort after all other attempts to right the wrong have been thwarted. Enemy invasion, theft of land and resources, and disruption of trade are all traditional reasons for war to be a necessary solution. Today we have laws regarding preemptive and preemptive war that have only been discussed in more recent history. Preemptive warfare involves attacking first when it is clear that you will soon be attacked. Preventive war involves attacking in order to prevent your opponent from gaining more power and thus threatening your status. An example of an act of preemptive war could be the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II. Both of these war overtures are technically illegal, even though these actions have rarely had significant consequences. Making these tactics illegal is an attempt to stop wars from starting, and hopefully prevent wars from happening. Jus in Bello describes proper conduct in times of war. Once at war, the use of force must be proportional to the amount necessary to right the wrong done. In other words, there must be no excessive use of unnecessary force. The military must consciously distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and civilians must be left alone. Finally, the government is not responsible for unintended negative consequences of war if the damage was unintentional, the intent was positive, and the positive results of the war outweigh the negatives. Before modern weaponry, the concept of proportionality was about doing no more to the opposing army than they did to you or what is justified based on the offense. Beginning in World War I, we begin to see biochemical warfare and the ability to bomb entire regions. With these technological advances, more specific rules were needed to prevent these weapons from causing undue harm. Biochemical warfare, carpet bombing, intimidation of civilians through the use of rape and theft have all been declared international war crimes punishable by the war court. However, as with the application of preventive war, it is rare that all crimes are punished, if only for reasons other than in the context of war, they are so numerous that it is difficult to follow and gather all the details. For example, the UN issued this statement regarding the wartime bombing of a Syrian university: "The Secretary-General strongly condemns yesterday's appalling attack on the university in Aleppo, in which dozens of people were reportedly killed and injured. » Strongly condemning an act is not the same as punishing it, but a global governing body with the strength to enforce international law could be a solution with more sinister consequences. Although Grotius is known for the first form of laws of conduct, this was not the case. Until the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, several nations agreed on a code of conduct regarding warfare with an emphasis.