Editing Just war theory (section)

===''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."