The solution of using moral and legislative means to produce ethical solutions has been used by many to resolve civic conflicts throughout history . In the early 13th century, a man named Saint Thomas Aquinas created what is today called just war theory: the framework behind almost all theories of intervention and war. The theory aims to determine the conditions under which war should be waged (jus ad bellum), how it should be waged (jus In bello) and the justice of what happens after the war (jus post bellum). The blend of deontological and moral reasoning creates a set of criteria generally accepted by people considering waging war or engaging in intervention. Before fully analyzing the effects of just war theory on a political landscape, it is first necessary to understand what just war theory actually affects. Humanitarian intervention occurs when a country denounces human rights violations and intervenes militarily to prevent their spread. The question that remains after denouncing human rights violations is when to implement large-scale interventions (the other option is to suffer the consequences of non-intervention). These are again some of the most important global political questions we face today. Furthermore, to truly measure the success of implementing just war theory, we need to understand what war is, what are its causes, and is war morally justifiable? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay On the surface level, there are two main sets of belief systems among the base of just war theory adherents. One is traditionalism and the other is revisionism. Traditionalists choose to focus on creating a moral foundation based on practical international legislation, while revisionists believe that legislation lacks deeper moral complexity and that we should instead focus solely on moral beliefs and judge ethical applications of just war theory on a case-by-case basis. On closer inspection, revisionists question establishment morality and also argue for expanding the grounds for intervention and declaration of war. Revisionists believe that the best thing fighters who fight for the wrong causes can do is to stop fighting for that cause altogether. In contrast, traditionalists believe, primarily for pragmatic reasons, that there is no real reason to change our current institutions (no need for significant reform in the status quo). Within the revisionist and traditionalist sects of just war theory, there are radically different ways of proceeding. that people get closer to the definition of war. The first group of individuals, institutionalists, believe that the primary goal of philosophers should be to identify what institutions should be that regulate war. This means creating morally justifiable rules to implement, and then enforcing them by informing individuals and groups that these rules are what is “morally justifiable.” On the other hand, the interactional approach requires us to get rid of institutions altogether and focus first on what is morally justifiable for these groups and individuals.individuals. Instead of starting with the creation of institutions, the interactional approach focuses on interactions with individuals and groups. Generally, indirect consequentialists and people who believe in social contract theory side more with the institutional approach than the interactional approach. The reason lies in their ideologies themselves. Social contract theorists believe that hypothetical contract theory specifies their terms of wartime interaction for their citizens through institutions, while indirect consequentialists believe that institutions will have a greater long-term impact (consequence) and will create significantly better results than the alternative solution. Using hypothetical and historical cases, we can conduct clinical trials to isolate variables and test tentative explanations in practice. The second division within revisionists and traditionalists is that of reductivists and non-reductivists. Reductivists believe that killing during a period of war should be justified in the same way that killing outside of war is due to the nature of the similar outcome (the end of a human life). Non-reductivists believe that the circumstances in which war takes place allow for exceptions to be made regarding killings committed during war. The sum of these ideologies was combined to create a set of principles by which it is ethical to wage war (jus ad bellum). These principles are: just cause, legitimate authority, reasonable prospects of success, good intention, last resort and proportionality. Just cause means that the group or institution engaging in an act of war must avoid possible harm and legitimate authority is a rule that states that the group engaging in war must have the legitimate authority to do so. Furthermore, a reasonable prospect of success means that the war should have a chance of achieving its objectives; good intention ensures that there are no ulterior motives when an establishment imposes its ideals. Proportionality is based on utilitarianism and says that the good must outweigh the harm caused by war or intervention, and finally the rule of last resort ensures that there are no other reasonable alternatives which were exhausted before military engagement. that it is appropriate to wage war or mount intervention, jus in bello are the ethical criteria for how to wage war or mount intervention once you have met the criteria to pursue that line of action. conduct. The set of rules is as follows: Discrimination: Combatants must not kill innocent civilians and must instead focus only on armed combatants. Proportionality: The amount of force we use in a conflict should be judged based on the just cause rule and limited based on just cause. rule of intention of jus ad bellum. Responsibility - each establishment is solely responsible for its actions. The rule of accountability specifically addresses punishment for gross violations of power or war crimes. When the negative effects of fighting or intervention were unintentional, if the good done by war outweighs the bad and the action had good intentions, then the bad impacts are morally tolerated, they can then be exempt from this rule. While the goals of jus in bello are to prevent noncombatant casualties, civilian casualties cannot be completely abolished because some soldiers and generals believe that in war, “anything goes.” Although it is aA somewhat valid opinion, just war theory, particularly jus in bello, states that any action deemed excessive (e.g. killing civilians without provocation or without the use of excessive force outside of what is ordered) is considered unacceptable and justifies a trial (according to the theory, of course, international and then national law creates a precedent). More specifically, jus in bello considers that killing civilians amounts to murder in a normal situation. This means that people who commit unjust acts are responsible even if it was done by a superior. Essentially, even if the superior ordered the unjust act, he did not commit it and therefore should not be punished for it. These criteria serve as a general guideline for morally permissible conduct in war, and although there is no initiative to make these rules into law, initiatives to enforce this policy in places of power policy have continued since their beginnings. While it is okay to engage in war or intervention and discuss moral action in a war context, I think it is equally important to talk about jus post bellum, or justice after war. . Jus post bellum is currently a theoretical concept and although the ideas continue to be discussed, it is not technically included in traditional ideas of just war theory. The first time jus ad bellum and jus in bello were discussed was in a Christian context (as the ideas of just war theory are primarily rooted in Christian theological beliefs), and after research into Various modern Christian scholars, some have had ideas around jus post. bellum who stood out. Michael Schuck published an article in Christian Century Magazine that said the 3 characteristics of jus post bellum should be repentance, honorable surrender, and restoration (whether the end goal of war is to restore peace or end conflict in a certain region in a religious context). More detailed principles were later developed by people like Brian Orend who wrote "jus post bellum", the Journal of Social Philosophy and was a catalyst in bringing jus post bellum to the debate stage. His seven principles of jus post bellum outline a way to appropriately defuse conflict: Compensation – Financial compensation may be obligatory, either to help rebuild infrastructure or for war damages. Punishment – ​​Social and political leaders of victorious countries and losing camps should be tried for their war crimes, if any. Reform – Reform any regressive or antagonistic institution in an aggressive regime. Discrimination – Distinctions must be made between leaders, soldiers and civilians, as civilians must be excluded from post-war efforts. (e.g. they should not face war crimes as non-combatants). Proportionality and publicity - Peace talks must be made public and reasonable. Justification of rights - The initial settlement must guarantee the fundamental rights of those who took place the intervention or war. because of.Similarly, another prominent writer and veteran, Louis V. Iaseillo, believes that there should be a different set of criteria for justice after the war:Keep in mind: this is just a sample.Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get Custom EssayA Healing Mindset – If the aim of war is to resolve the conflict, then a healing mindset once the conflict is physically resolved resolved is imperative. Save the,.