1. Just War Theory Dialogue Education Update 4
Next Slide: Fling the Teacher
Dialogue Education
Update 4

2. Fling the Teacher
Click on the image above for a game of “Fling the Teacher”. Try playing the game with your students at the start and the end of the unit. Make sure you have started the slide show and are connected to the internet.
Next Slide: Kahoot

3. Kahoot- Just War Theory
Next Slide: Just War Definition

4. Just War theory is a doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin studied by moral theologians, ethicists and international policy makers which holds that a conflict can and ought to meet certain conditions.
Next Slide: history

5. History
Most recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defence by military force":
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The Just War Theory was asserted as an authoritative Catholic Church teaching by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defence by military force":
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Next Slide: Secular humanists

6. Just War Theory
Secular humanists may accept just war theory based on universal ethics without reference to Christian morality.
While proponents claim such views have a long tradition, critics claim the application of Just War is only relativistic, and directly contradicts more universal philosophical traditions such as the Ethic of reciprocity. Secular humanists may accept just war theory based on universal ethics without reference to Christian morality.
Next Slide: Just war theories….

7. Just War Theory
Just War theories are attempts "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"
Just War theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just War theories are attempts "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"; they attempt "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice.“
Next Slide: The idea that resorting

8. Just War Theory
The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero.
The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius later codified a set of rules for a just war, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications.
Next Slide: you Tube Video

9. YOUTUBE Video – Christianity: A History | Just War | Channel 4
Click on the image to the right. You will need to be connected to the internet to view this presentation.
Enlarge to full screen
Next Slide: Three parts…

10. Just War Theory
The Just War tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello).
The Just War tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello). In more recent years, a third category — jus post bellum — has been added, which governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals.
Next Slide: You Tube Video

11. YOUTUBE Video – Battlefields of Europe
Click on the image to the right. You will need to be connected to the internet to view this presentation.
Enlarge to full screen
Next Slide: Criteria

12. Criteria of Just War theory
Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war.
Next Slide: You Video

13. YOUTUBE Video – Chomsky-Just War Theory and Iraq at West Point-pt1of7
Click on the image to the right. You will need to be connected to the internet to view this presentation.
Enlarge to full screen
Next Slide: Jus Ad Bellum

14. Jus ad bellum
Just cause - The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.
Just cause - The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Next Slide: Jus Ad Bellum

15. Jus ad bellum
Comparative justice - While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.
Comparative justice - While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Next Slide: Jus Ad Bellum

16. Jus ad bellum
Legitimate authority - Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
Legitimate authority - Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
Next Slide: Jus Ad Bellum

17. Jus ad bellum
Right intention - Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Right intention - Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Next Slide: Jus Ad Bellum

18. Jus ad bellum
Probability of success - Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.
Probability of success - Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.
Next Slide: Jus Ad Bellum

19. Jus ad bellum
Last resort - Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.
Last resort - Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Next Slide: Jus ad Bellum

20. Jus ad bellum
Proportionality - The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
Proportionality - The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
Next Slide: Jus Ad Bello

21. Jus in bello- (How should combatants act?)
Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act.
Next Slide: Jus Ad bello

22. Jus in bello
Distinction - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction.
Distinction - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians.
Next Slide: Jus Ad bello

23. Jus in bello
Proportionality - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality.
Proportionality - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).
Next Slide: us Ad Bello

24. Jus in bello
Military necessity - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force.
Military necessity - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.
Next Slide: Pope john Paul….

25. According to the Pope John Paul II, however, the Iraq war was clearly not a just one.
Next Slide: Iraq War

26. The just war tradition and the Iraq War
In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the question of whether the invasion would be a just war was posed.
In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the question of whether the invasion would be a just war was posed. Many of those on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in terms of the Just War. They came to quite different conclusions because they put different interpretations on how the just war criteria should be applied. Supporters of the war tended to accept the US position that the enforcement of UN resolutions was sufficient authority or even, as in the case of the Land Letter, that the United States as a sovereign nation could count as legitimate authority. Opponents of the war tended to interpret legitimate authority as requiring a specific Security Council resolution. They also asserted that the US had neither exhausted its diplomatic options nor allowed international efforts to run their course
and take effect.
Next Slide: You Tube Video

27. YOUTUBE Video – The Six Day War
Click on the image to the right. You will need to be connected to the internet to view this presentation.
Enlarge to full screen
Next Slide: Bibliography

28. Bibliography
Heindel, Max, The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers - Volume II (The Philosophy of War, World War I reference, ed. 1918), ISBN (Describing a philosophy of war and just war concepts from a Rosicrucian point of view)
Benson, Richard, (The Just War Theory: A traditional Catholic moral view), The Tidings (2006). (Showing the Catholic view in three points, including John Paul II's position concerning war)
Michael Walzer Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th ed., (New York: Basic Books, 1977). ISBN
Uwe Steinhoff, On the Ethics of War and Terrorism (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007). Covers the basics and some of the most controversial current debates.
David Roberts MacDonald, Padre E. C. Crosse and 'the Devonshire Epitaph': The Astonishing Story of One Man at the Battle of the Somme (with Antecedents to Today's 'Just War' Dialogue), 2007 Cloverdale Books, South Bend. ISBN
Irfan Khawaja, Review of Larry May, War Crimes and Just War, in Democratiya 10, an extended critique of just war theory.
Michael W. Brough, John W. Lango, Harry van der Linden, eds., Rethinking the Just War Tradition (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2007). Disccusses the contemporary relevance of just war theory. Offers an annotated bibliography of current writings on just war theory.
v. Starck, Christian (Hrsg.): Kann es heute noch gerechte Kriege geben?, Wallstein-Verlag 2008