Just War Theory: Is The Syrian War Justified?

Invading Iraq was—and remains—a highly debated and controversial decision within both world politics and the academic disciplines of politics and international relations. With a growing number of deaths, rising tensions in the Middle East, and a failure to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the voices condemning the Bush administration have been increasing ever since the decision to go to war was announced. While many scholars have traditionally argued against the war, this paper will argue that the Iraq War can be justified.

In his analysis and rebuttal of Walzer’s article, Tesón notes that Walzer does concede that “elimination of ISIS and the establishment of political structures that would prevent its resurgence, would constitute a just end;” albeit with such extreme difficulty that Walzer believes would be near impossible. Tesón argues that within a specific just-war framework, synthesizing the arguments of Walzer and McMahan, such a just end would be possible. This framework emphasizes: (1) just cause as the main emphasis of intervention -- mainly that of humanitarianism and self-defense; (2) ground troops consisting of indigenous forces, such as the Kurds and Shiites, so as to not perpetuate the myth of western crusaders in their holy land; (3) jus in bello and the enforcement of Geneva conventions; (4) long-term planning and restructuring of the region via occupation to establish “political institutions that will secure peace, freedom from violence, the rule of law, and human rights… in a way that prevents the resurgence of ISIS or similar murderous organizations;” and (5) a “generous immigration” for those displaced by the

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

Syria’s civil war is the worst humanitarian crisis of modern time. The “Syrian Civil war Began in March of 2011, between rebel brigades and government force; economy and infrastructure is destroyed” (Library, 2016). “Divisions between secular and religious fighters, and between ethnic groups, continue to complicate the politics of the conflict” (Corps, 2016). Additionally, the Syrian civil war has taken a significant

65). Syrian’s that are stuck in refugee camps or still living in Syria are fighting for the freedom from authority that they did not agree to, the war has killed over 220,000 people and displaced half of the country’s population (GIlsinan, 2015). The states thus far have responded to the many facets of this crisis with very realist approaches via military action. Realists will tend to prioritize power and place it above and separate from morality and ideology, basing their arguments on tradition and focusing on the power to be gained or lost in the situation (Goldstien, 56). Are force and fraud the most reasonable types of action (Suth, Elias 2007), where is the morality; “More than a third of Americans want to ban Muslims from entering the United states” (Hayoun 2015, The independent). It appears that realism is winning the war against idealism in the US - realism is pessimistic and cynical towards life and human nature, thus there is no hope for a good end of human kind (Najob, Hamed, Gandomikal 2015). One possible motivation of the American people to adopt this very pessimistic and realist way of looking at the crisis and the Muslim population as a whole, is they might assume that liberalist approaches, with its theories in moral reasoning, may

When is it justifiable to engage in war? This question has plagued humanity for centuries and continues to do so. The theory of just war addresses three important questions when considering and dealing with war. These components are when is it justifiable to go to war, the right ways to conduct proceedings during war, and the justification of terminating war. The first part of the theory, originally written in Latin as jus ad bellum, is an important idea within Pope Urban II’s, “Speech at Clermont.” In the 11th century Pope Urban II gave this speech as a call for crusade with the hope of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim control. They eventually succeeded in this mission and took the city of Jerusalem. The “Speech at Clermont,” is now an important source for understanding the justifications of going to war within the medieval just war theory. Throughout the speech Pope Urban II justified the crusade by claiming it was the responsibility of the Christian people to regain the Holy Land, to protect their fellow Christians in the East, and their duty to stop the “disgraceful” and “demon worshipping” Muslim people.

This paper will define and determine the criteria for warfare, argue that neither the 9/11 attacks nor the resulting counterterrorism reactions take after the conventional standards of Just War theory: these events cannot be portrayed as just under the guidelines of jus ad bellum or jus in bello. More importantly, the events should not be classified or regarded as a war. Rather, these related acts are criminal offences that were toss under the label of warfare due to the American interpretation of 9/11 as a ‘first strike’ tactic which in turn prompted a military response, setting in motion an international standard. The resulting ‘war’ has arguably been a series of violations of international law.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace and safety. The just war can only be waged as a last resort requiring that all reasonable non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war can be just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. An array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare.

The date was March 19, 2003, people sat beside their television sets and radios to listen to U.S. President, George W. Bush, announce, “At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger” (“War in Iraq Begins,” 2003). Bush and his advisor’s actions were based on the information that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was building weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq War is a “just” war because it was a reasonable response with a moral purpose.

america’s involvement in syria raises complex ethical arguments. what are the challenges surrounding the moral, ethical, societal and sovereign decisions of this involvement?

A Just War is a war which is fought, however, conducted under certain rules and regulations; these were created by Thomas Aquinas and Francisco de Vitoria. (Anon,[n.d]a), This theory is used as a means of showing those who are going to war, excluding those which classify under the regulations, that going to war is wrong and were deemed immoral. The intentions which were used to forward this process were to encourage the other states that there are other means of resolving conflict and to prevent war.

The intent of this review is to evaluate the concept of "Just Post Bellum" that the article 's author, Gary J. Bass, developed through an empirical theoretical research about the doctrine of Just War. The way the author adapts the evidence found in the speeches of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter makes us think he tends to justify somewhat recent interventions the United States made in the Middle East when he says: "Both presidents explained that for a free state a just war, must show not only that went to war for good reasons, but also that their conduct war was consistent with that purpose: to help make the most stable region and safe, and leaving affected populations less subject to violence and oppression." However, Gary J. Bass also provides constructive criticism and compiles theoretical concepts of importance of various classical and contemporary authors from the realistic-idealistic point of view of several events that promote an understanding of clear concepts of Just War and their relevance in the context of a globalized world. The author refutes the conventional perception that "Political leaders often invoke postwar evolution as bringing democracy or stability as part of justifying or condemning a war," (P. 384), when in reality other standards of postwar evolution exist.

The assumption that there are a morally significant achievements that can be made in war seems paramount to just war theory. Taking a life without certainty of of the necessity of doing so undermines the value of that life. Because international relations provides such an ambiguous and subjective subject matter to apply just killing theory to, pacifism seems to be the approach most likely to encourage peace.

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

The “just cause criterion is central in the “just war” doctrine. When assessing the sufficient “just cause” reasons the principle of self-defence is undoubtedly tolerable. It can be extended to the reason of assisting aid to victims of oppression or external threat (Moseley n.d.). Following this principle, the mass murder of the Syrian civilians by the government forces that reached nearly 40000 (Aloyo 2014) create a justified cause for the USA and the international community in general. However, in the case of Syria using forces against the aggression as a whole will be an impossible task, as both parties