Editing Just war theory (section)

==Criteria==

The just war theory has two sets of criteria, the first establishing ''jus ad bellum'' (the right to go to war), and the second establishing ''jus in bello'' (right conduct within war).<ref name=Childress>{{Cite journal|author=Childress, James F.|title=Just-War Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities, and Functions of Their Criteria|journal=Theological Studies|volume=39|issue=3|year=1978|pages=427–445|author-link=James Childress|doi=10.1177/004056397803900302|s2cid=159493143}}</ref>

===''Jus ad bellum''===
{{Main|Jus ad bellum}}The just war theory directs jus ad bellum to norms that aim to require certain circumstances to enable the right to go to war.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Buchanan |first=Allen |date=January 2006 |title=Institutionalizing the Just War |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2006.00051.x |journal=Philosophy and Public Affairs |language=en |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=2–38 |doi=10.1111/j.1088-4963.2006.00051.x |issn=0048-3915}}</ref>
;[[Competent authority]]: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]]'s regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the [[Operation Menu|1968 US bombing of Cambodia]]) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html|title=Just War Theory|access-date=25 April 2015|archive-date=7 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130907081045/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>
;Probability of success: According to this principle, there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable.<ref name=Hubert&Weiss>Don Hubert and Thomas G. Weiss et al. "The Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty". (Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001)</ref> This principle emphasizes that mass violence must not be undertaken if it is unlikely to secure the just cause.<ref name=SEP>{{Cite web
| title = War (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) | access-date = 27 August 2014| url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2.1 |website= plato.stanford.edu}}</ref> This criterion is to avoid invasion for invasion's sake and links to the proportionality criteria. One cannot invade if there is no chance of actually winning. However, wars are fought with imperfect knowledge, so one must simply be able to make a logical case that one can win; there is no way to know this in advance. These criteria move the conversation from moral and theoretical grounds to practical grounds.<ref>{{cite book|last=Seybolt|first=Taylor B.|title=Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure|date=January 2007|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-925243-5}}</ref> Essentially, this is meant to gather coalition building and win approval of other state actors.
;Last resort: The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities. Further, in regard to the amount of harm—proportionally—the principle of last resort would support using small intervention forces first and then escalating rather than starting a war with massive force such as [[carpet bombing]] or [[nuclear warfare]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Just War Theory and the Last of Last Resort – Ethics & International Affairs|url=https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2015/just-war-theory-last-last-resort|website=Ethics & International Affairs|access-date=2 April 2017|date=12 June 2015|archive-date=21 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150621004346/https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2015/just-war-theory-last-last-resort|url-status=dead}}</ref>
;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."

===''Jus in bello''===
Once war has begun, just war theory (''jus in bello'') also directs how [[combatant]]s are to act or should act:

;[[Distinction (law)|Distinction]]: Just war conduct is governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards [[non-combatant]]s caught in circumstances that they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no [[legitimate military target]]s, committing acts of [[terrorism]] or [[reprisal]] against civilians or prisoners of war (POWs), and attacking [[Neutrality (international relations)|neutral]] targets. Moreover, combatants are not permitted to attack enemy combatants who have surrendered, or who have been captured, or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat, or who are [[attacks on parachutists|parachuting from disabled aircraft]] and are not [[airborne forces]], or who are [[shipwreck]]ed.
;[[Proportionality (law)#International law|Proportionality]]: Just war conduct is governed by the principle of proportionality. Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a [[legitimate military target|legitimate military objective]]. This principle is meant to discern the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act.
;[[Military necessity]]: Just war conduct is governed by the principle of military necessity. An attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a [[legitimate military target|legitimate 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. Jus in bello allows for military necessity and does not favor a specific justification in allowing for counter-attack recourse.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mégret |first=Frédéric |date=2006 |title=''Jus in Bello'' and ''Jus ad Bellum'' |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25660075 |journal=Proceedings of the Asil Annual Meeting |volume=100 |pages=121–123 |doi=10.1017/S0272503700024022 |jstor=25660075 |issn=0272-5037}}</ref> This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.
;Fair treatment of [[prisoners of war]]: Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.
;No means [[malum in se]]: Combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare that are considered evil, such as [[mass rape]], forcing enemy combatants to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g., [[nuclear weapon|nuclear]]/[[biological weapons]]).

===Ending a war: ''Jus post bellum''===
In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within the just war theory. "[[Jus post bellum]] is described by some scholars as a new "discipline," or as "a new category of international law currently under construction".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Brabandere |first=Eric De |date=February 2014 |title=7 The Concept of Jus Post Bellum in International Law: A Normative Critique |chapter=The Concept of Jus Post Bellum in International Law: A Normative Critique |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/25936/chapter/193705796 |access-date=20 September 2024 |website=Oxford Academic|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685899.003.0008 |isbn=978-0-19-968589-9 }}</ref> ''Jus post bellum''<ref>{{Cite book|last=Easterday |first=Jenifer |editor-first1=Jennifer S. |editor-first2=Jens |editor-first3=Carsten |editor-last1=Easterday |editor-last2=Iverson |editor-last3=Stahn |title=Exploring the Normative Foundations of Jus Post Bellum |chapter=Exploring the Normative Foundations of Jus Post Bellum: An Introduction |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/25936/chapter/193694588 |access-date=27 October 2024 |website=Oxford Academic |date=2014 |pages=1–12 |publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685899.003.0001 |isbn=978-0-19-968589-9 }}</ref> concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, environmental remediation, war crimes trials, and war reparations. ''Jus post bellum'' has been added to deal with the fact that some hostile actions may take place outside a traditional battlefield. ''Jus post bellum'' governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals, and publicly labelled terrorists. The idea has largely been added to help decide what to do if there are prisoners that have been taken during battle. It is, through government labelling and public opinion, that people use ''jus post bellum'' to justify the pursuit of labelled terrorist for the safety of the government's state in a modern context. The actual fault lies with the aggressor and so by being the aggressor, they forfeit their rights for honourable treatment by their actions. That theory is used to justify the actions taken by anyone fighting in a war to treat prisoners outside of war.<ref>{{cite book|title=Studies in Moral philosophy: Just War Theory|date=October 2012|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-9004228504 |page=187 | author1= Thom Brooks}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Justice after War: Jus Post Bellum in the 21st Century|date=May 2023|publisher=Catholic University of American Press|isbn=978-0813236513 | author1= David Kwon}}</ref>