The fundamental criterion for a just war is normally considered along two axes: 1. the right, or the morality, of going to war (jus ad bellum) and 2. the moral conduct in war (jus in bello).
Just war theory submits that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option. In ancient Rome, the necessity of resisting an invasion or retaliating for raids would have been reasons for a just war. In just war theory, preventing future atrocities is also a justification for war.
In Christian doctrine, St. Augustine of Hippo, who originated the term “just war”, stressed that peacefulness would be a sin when facing wrongs that could only be stopped by violence. Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas set out three requirements for a just war:
The war must be waged under the command of a rightful sovereign.
The war must be fought for just cause on account of some wrong perpetrated on the party
seeking to wage a just war.
Warriors must have the right intent to promote good and avoid evil. Contemporary armed
conflicts, such as World War II, have generally been judged according to Aquinas’ norms.
The just war historical tradition combines a moral aversion towards war with a willingness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. For the State of Israel, following the October 7th attack by Hamas terrorists on Israeli civilians; war is the only reasonable option.
Once war has begun, the norms of jus in bello come into play, among these norms are distinction, proportionality, military necessity, fair treatment of prisoners of war and malum in se.
Distinction refers to directing the acts of war only towards enemy combatants. The practice of Hamas terrorist of hiding amongst civilian populations will make this a monumental challenge for the Israeli armed forces.
Proportionality refers to combatants making sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive. Rightfully, the Israeli government will seek to eradicate the Hamas
No comments:
Post a Comment