Just War Theory Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Just War Theory - Essay Example Orend observes that a state may also indulge in war for defending its territories to achieve internal and inter-boarder peace. Orend believes that for war to be justified, it must engage use of weapons and be well organized and arranged in advance before strike. Orend defines a just war as an intentional, actual organized and armed attack between aggressors. Just war theory is based on two points of view; classic and contemporary just wars. Schall reports that theorists like the Father Webster and Mr. Cole insist that for a war to qualify as just, it must base on classic concept and should not involve evil actions like fighting the perceived innocent and noncombatant individuals. Father Webster and Mr. Cole believe that a justified war should transpire through certain criteria. The contemporary concept of just war permits armed attack under the claims of self-defense by a country. The contemporary concept of just war recognizes permission granted for coercion to be based on the defen se of the individual state and the collective world. Contemporary concept of just war also proposes international support to the state subjected to attacks by the aggressor. The contemporary concept of just war argues that international community can merge to execute collective defense to a member state facing attack from internal militia who get support from foreign aggressor. The contemporary concept of just war advocates for use of military force in intervening cases that involve serious abuse of human rights (Johnson 33). This argument was passed to be a moral cause of just war waged against the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The contemporary concept of just war further argues that the just war should not be fought in a manner that exempts the attack and harm of the noncombatants. From this argument, the proponents of contemporary concept stood to rebuke the air bombing dropped during the war against Iraq, which harmed many noncombatants (Johnson 34). Contemporary concep t of just war allows the military troops to breach the laws of right conduct in war when overwhelmed by the opponent superior forces (Johnson 35). The Iraqi militia forces when resisting the new Iraqi government employed this principle of just war. The contemporary concept also justifies a war conducted against a state perceived to bear threats to the aggressor and the entire UN. This perception led to the collective synergy of the UN and Bush Administration in conducting disarmament attack against Saddam Hussein. The contemporary concept further argues that any killing conducted during war is wrong and can only be exceptional under sufficient justification. The classic concept argues that provoking just war is permissible to a political community that enjoys peace in its surroundings but faces danger of attack from the aggressors. A responsible political authority is permitted to use armed force as tool perceived to the only mean offering protection to citizens and ensuring peace i n a war threatened state. The classic concept of just war injustice and the threats linked to injustice are the basic moral problems that need to be addressed. The use of force in accomplishing just war is considered harmless under the classic point of view. The classic concept of just war argues that the measure of morality of force depends on the one using it and the reason behind the use of the force (Johnson 36). Classic concept justifies war when based on just cause and the right intention for provoking the war