IndexSummaryJust War Theory: Literature ReviewIntroductionThe Jus ad BellumJus In BelloJus Post BellumConclusionReferenceSummaryThe purpose of this study is to explore some of the aspects that influence state and non-state actors using the theory of just war Theory of war in wars or conflicts. The review seeks to answer the research question: How does the application of just war theory impact current wars based on the current environment and complexity of today's conflicts. Additionally, analyzing the boundaries of wars and how just war theory applies to humanitarian efforts within and after wars. The goal is to examine the patterns and principles of just war theory and to determine whether or not the theory is applied ethically and morally to wars. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Just War Theory: Literature Review Introduction Just war theory primarily provides a strategic framework on why and how wars occur as well as having justified means of waging war. It could be deduced that just war theory is mainly based on three main models: just ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum. These models will be further analyzed and reviewed. When applying just war theory it is necessary to respect certain principles. Under normal circumstances, in the application of Just War Theory, all nonviolent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified, which is the last resort under which war can be waged. Just War Theory is the foundation upon which states or individuals pursue the moral and legitimate rationalization of going to war. The history of just war theory began with the philosopher Augustine who provided the foundation of the theory and provided observations on the morality of war. According to Vorster, “For a society to be sustainable and preserved from falling into chaos, it requires a sense of virtue and justice that can only emanate from the love of God. This explains why Augustine held to the doctrine of just war and why he expected that the State acted coercively to preserve the justice and virtue of society” (2015). Furthermore, another philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, systematized Augustine's thoughts into clear principles that have remained the basis of just war theory to this day. St. Thomas Aquinas presented the broad standards of justification for war and the types of activities and actions tolerated during war. Although just war theory is outdated, recently, the theory has been rationalized due to modern warfare and the operational environment we live in. function. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), researchers turned their attention to just war theory and, more importantly, the theory's role, implications, and effects on the dynamic front. While strict rule is applied to nations' militaries and individual combatants to adhere to war treaties and conventions, war crimes continue. In some parts of developing nations, such as in the Rwandan genocide, wars are waged against cultural and ethnic groups with much brutality. While these actions can be argued to benefit just war theory, some engagements within warfare are believed to be unjustifiable regardless of the cause. Under the rule of law, nations or individuals who go against the law or violate it must be held accountableresponsible for their own actions. Furthermore, it is essential to note the post-war effects on the humanitarian crisis. Furthermore, the feminist perspective of just war must be addressed, which constitutes another criticism of this theory. The feminist view of this theory is concerned with the gendered nature of just war. For some, the cruelties of war will continue because of the failure to apply morality within war and the failure of international courts to apply the law where necessary. . One thing that must be taken into consideration is the nations interest, which will somehow override ethical concerns in war. It can be noted that during wars, ethical concerns become unclear, which has proven problematic among the parties involved. Having two ethical visions, one open-minded and the other more restrictive, just war theory proposes a series of ideologies with the aim of maintaining possible moral strategies of war. In reference to just war, the logic is to distinguish between the rules regarding the fairness of war which is the jus ad bellum from the objective and reasonable conduct of war and the conditions for waging war; the jus in bello. While these guidelines are not limited in their ways, they provide a standard of ethical standards for warfare. The Jus ad Bellum The fairness of war generally refers to the just cause affirmed by a competent authority, with the right intentions and a logic of success of which the principle should be the last resort. Article two of the United Nations Charter prohibits states from exercising cross-border military services or forces without the approval of the United Nations Security Council (United Nations Charter, n.d.). The content of these exceptions provides a certain amount of debate as one can note other exceptions that may have existed. Therefore, the argument that a nation uses its forces without the proper consent of the United Nations Security Council can automatically veer into a humanitarian disaster. Mathew Waxman (2013) researched two views of jus ad bellum with strict and clear guidelines and also others that would prefer flexibility in evaluating circumstantial issues. Although the article highlights two distinctive views of this model, most agree that jus ad bellum consists of general guidelines applied to applicable values. The article Multi-Part Tests in the Jus ad Bellum by Ashley Deeks (2016) is somewhat similar to Waxman's View. Likewise, insisting on flexibility in understanding when dealing with unusual cases might be essentially “ethical” in some circumstances, but allowing extreme flexibility in this doctrine will be harmful in war, which could possibly undermine the UN Charter in the long run. term. Under these circumstances, nations and states tend to drift apart. Occasionally, nations conduct actions that may not be reasonable under jus ad bellum (Monica Hakimi, 2018). In such cases and as the general guidelines of jus ad bellum state, the nations whose actions (acting in the “grey zone”) indicate their position reflect particular cases and instances and not in accordance with any law. For example, in April 2017, the United States conducted missile strikes against Syria in response to suspected use of chemical weapons that potentially killed civilians, including children. The actions of the United States did not accord with the “acceptable” standards required by the jus ad bellum. Furthermore, the US actions were not in accordance with cross-border forces, and Syria did not consent to the operation. In essence, the UN Charter does not haveapproved this action. The United States did not act in self-defense, but emphasized the importance of preventing the use of chemical weapons. Rather, it was a specific act, which justified the use of force and was supported by other states. Another controversial theory is the application of the counterterrorism and Patriot Act within the parameters of Jus ad Bellum. Michael Lacewing (nd) conducted a study on just war theory and highlighted all the details about the jus ad bellum that war must be just. The connection between morality and the fight against terrorism has been studied in the past and therefore the need to connect the dots. Analyzing methods to counter both domestic and foreign terrorism, key topics such as domestic surveillance and the patriotic act, for example, were discussed in the context of just war. The United States Patriot Act (2002) was one of these burning issues regarding morality. Some support for its necessity and ethics. Katrine Hadjimatheou (2014) argues that cases of untargeted surveillance make people less skeptical of targeted alternatives. It also highlights that untargeted surveillance is likely to be morally cost-effective when used to enforce order in specific activities. As the Patriot Act expands its ability to conduct and tap into domestic and foreign activities, ethical questions have been raised as agencies have been given more power to use all available resources to combat terrorism. The debate on whether to tighten or remain flexible under the right ad bellum concept remains unanswered as some circumstances or cases are defined by both arguments. These topics can be modified into doctrine which can describe some of the assumptions and the act of balancing ideologies can be captured in law. This will ultimately help in understanding the limitations and values ​​that operate under this concept. Jus In Bello When undertaking opposition actions, efforts must be made to realize and achieve objectives with the necessary force and avoid harm to non-combatants. The amount of force used must be proportional to the destruction and at the same time avoid civilian lives. Furthermore, according to this concept, civilians do not necessarily have to be under direct attack and military forces should take precautions to minimize or avoid harm to civilians. This falls under the discrimination factor of the concept. Furthermore, the right of intention in achieving the relevant goal of peace must be respected. Alexander Moseley argues in his article on just war theory (n.d.) explains how waging a war can be considered unjust and unjust to attack largely innocent people since civilians are not considered part of the war aspect. Moseley further explains that the right case standard is that of offensive action, which should remain strictly proportional to the desired objective. Geoffrey Corn in Self-defense Targeting (2013) explains the jus in bello concept of proposed alternatives to aim for applicable stability between the authority capable of obtaining the acquiescence of an enemy and the humanitarian interest of regulating anticipated miseries linked with conflict. Braun and Brunstetter (2013) argue the opposite of finding proportionality in beautiful. With the use of drones, the authors argue how the damage or effects caused by drones are not relatively proportional in achieving objectives in warfare. The articles further evaluate the ethics of drone use and human rights concerns in deploying drones on specific war fronts. Michael Boyle (2015) examines the legal and ethical implications of drone warfare. It claims fromboth sides citing the Obama administration over the use of drones to defeat al-Qaeda and its terrorist networks around the world, while limiting the use of ground forces to carry out its mission. On the other hand, Boyle highlights the fact that modern warfare determines the type of weapon used, using ad bellum as just war to update just war theory to suit modern warfare. While some do not believe that morality and ethics do not exist in war, the just in bello system offers guidelines that must be used in war. In war, the states or parties involved will do whatever is necessary to win the war and achieve their goal. While this may apply; international laws must be respected to ensure balance and ensure that the principle of humanity is applied in conflicts. Leslie Green (2008) specifies conflict policies and standards that should seek to aim to protect human life and the foundations of human rights to ensure that violence is limited in the context of warfare. Jus Post Bellum With two essential parts of the just war theory discussed above on justice and how to fight wars, jus post bellum is equally essential in the just war theory. Gary Bass (2004) explains post-war issues and how critical it is to stabilize the war environment. While the author delves into the importance of the post-war period, he also highlights the burden placed on the post-war period, even if the war fought may have been just. In the article Jus Post Bellum: The moral Responsibilities of Victors by Louis Iasiello (2004), the author's thoughts align with Gary Bass to rebuild and provide reconstruction and stabilization. The article further clarifies the ethical implications of saving lives after the fact and thus restoring order. Mark Evan (2009) identifies the cost related to jus post bellum and considers the implications of states declaring war as they may be involved in rebuilding and providing stability for the victor. With the effects of war and the implications it brings, most discuss the ethical aspect of war to provide the necessities to bring peace and stability. While this aspect or concept may be costly in itself, the concept must be applied in just war theory to achieve the ultimate goal of peace. This concept determines the gendered nature of just war theory. Jiri Krcek (2012) evaluates the gendered nature of just war from the perspective of feminism and outlines the renewal of just war theory by taking humanitarian harm more seriously. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom EssayConclusionRecognition of the different topics of just war theory models provides the basis for adjusting the standards and principles of just war theory when evaluating actions taken by the state, international laws, and the need to act abruptly without adhering to no specific rules. The framework of just war theory must be adapted to suit today's operational environment and the nature of wars. More importantly, the humanitarian needs and ethical aspects of wars must be taken into account in policies and hold people who oppose them accountable. While this review has captured the importance of having flexibility within the theory, it is necessary to establish limitations and parameters for modeling war efforts. Reference Alexander Moseley (n.d.). Just war theory. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/Ashley Deeks (2016). The:=8289.