Fill out everythig BELOW!
Discussion Prompt:
When political leaders decide whether to go to war or not, just war theory requires them to test their decision by applying several principles for jus ad bellum (justice towards war).
Apply the following five questions on jus ad bellum to President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
Based on your answers, do you think his decision to go to war was just? Explain.
- Is it for a just cause? Explain.
This requires war only be used in response to serious wrongs. The most common example of just cause is self-defense, though coming to the defense of another innocent nation is also seen as a just cause by many (and perhaps the highest cause). (Ethics Explainer: Just War Theory
- Is it with the right intention? Explain.
This requires that war-time political leaders be solely motivated, at a personal level, by reasons that make a war just. For example, even if war is waged in defense of another innocent country, leaders cannot resort to war because it will assist their re-election campaign. (Ethics Explainer: Just War Theory
- Is it from a legitimate authority? Explain.
This demands war only be declared by leaders of a recognized political community and with the political requirements of that community. (Ethics Explainer: Just War Theory
- Does it have due proportionality? Explain.
This requires us to imagine what the world would look like if we either did or didn’t go to war. For a war to be ‘just’ the quality of the peace resulting from war needs to superior to what would have happened if no war had been fought. This also requires we have some probability of success in going to war – otherwise people will suffer and die needlessly. (Ethics Explainer: Just War Theory)
- Is it the last resort? Explain.
This requires that we explore all other reasonable options before going to war – negotiation, diplomacy, economic sanctions and so on. (Ethics Explainer: Just War Theory)