THE JUST WAR THEORY

The Just War Theory: It was developed by St. Augustine in the 4th century and later St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century It was developed to limit the scope of Christians’ participation in violence It has seven main parts In order for a war to be justified, it must satisfy each of the seven parts

1. Just Cause Does a real and certain injustice exist? Innocent lives are threatened Violations of human rights Imminent need for self- defense

2. Legitimate/Competent Authority Are recognized leaders following accepted rules in declaring war and in overseeing how it is carried out? The authority must represent the people Must be entrusted with protecting the common good

3. Comparative Justice Do the rights and values involved justify killing? No country is to assume that absolute justice is its own right (i.e. God is on its side) This point understands that there will be damage and loss on both sides of the war

4. Right Intention Is justice the intended outcome of the action/intervention? Examples: Restore peace to an area Free prisoners Stop human rights violations

5. Last Resort Have all other means of resolving the conflict been tried? Violence must be the last resort Requires the use of imagination in formulating other solutions to the conflict

6. Probability of success With a fair degree of certainty, are intended results likely to be achieved? It is only justified to sacrifice human lives if it is reasonable that their cause has hope for success Is war only a temporary solution to a larger problem (that may never be solved)?

7. Proportionality Will the forseeable good of the military action outweigh the possible damage caused? Will the good results of the war outweigh the bad things that result from it? A country must use limited methods that will help it achieve a justified goal.

A Hypothetical Situation: A group of terrorists hijack a plane carrying citizens from country A, intending to use the plane to kill its passengers and destroy certain prominent facilities of country A. Although not representatives of any government, the terrorists had trained for a time in country B, the leaders of which are sympathetic to their cause. Members of the terrorist organization continue to reside in country B.

1. Just Cause Do the actions of the terrorists meet the standard for just cause, permitting the use of violence against them? Because terrorists reside in country B, is country A’s government justified in waging war against that nation?

2. Competent Authority Who would be the legitimate leaders in countries A and B? Can a group ever use violence independent of a legitimately recognized government? (Think of revolutions. Did any of them have “officially recognized” authority?)

3. Comparative Justice What conditions might justify or deny the use of violence against a nation harboring terrorists?

4. Right Intention What is an example of an economic advantage that might be the actual intention for country A? How would this intention affect the principle of right intention?

5. Last Resort Are there ways of addressing terrorism other than warfare and violence? What other ways/methods have been used?

6. Probability of success Can country A engage in military actions if it determines that such actions would likely lead to the overthrow of a government harboring terrorists? Can you imagine a situation in which “winning a war” may not necessarily make that country more secure? Explain.

7. Proportionality What kinds of weapons and violence would be most effective in achieving goals while minimizing death and destruction? In the plane hijacking scenario, would country A be justified in causing the deaths of thousands of people in country B in order to kill or capture terrorists hiding there?