Law of Peace and the Law of War Essay Sample

When we hear the word peace, we usually think of a period of harmonious, peaceful coexistence after the war. Political ideologies generally condemn war, but make warfare a duty in "exceptional circumstances". Such wars are fought for moral reasons and purposes, and only morality, whether deontological or consequentialist, can set limits to violence. The law of peace and the law of war are the most pervasive themes in international law.

When we reflect on the main issues, we realize that different theoretical positions can also lead to dead ends. The main moral question about war is: can war be justified in the first place, and if so, how should it be conducted?

To find out, here are 3 theories on the subject. According to pacifism, violence is never a morally legitimate means;  even to achieve "good"/effective results; it is a violation of human right to life. Its main purpose is to avoid war and violence, since disputes can be solved through discussion rather than conflict. However, from a critical perspective, there is no evidence that pacifism always results in less death and suffering than war. Amoral realism is the belief that war can be used as a  natural and legitimate political tool, unconstrained by morality, because global order can only be achieved through the balance of power and military force of war. An example of this is the amoral explanation of religious wars, which says that the use of force/violence was justified by religious conviction and obligation. In between these two concepts is the theory of just war, which can be divided into 2 major groups: jus ad bullum; which defines the "right" time and criteria for starting a war (justice of going to war), so that it is just and according to the rules, and fair to both sides. In contrast to pacifism, it believes that the use of military force is justified when it is used as an instrument of justice, which can be: self-defense; protection of innocent/civilian people. Just war theory says that war may or may not be evil, depending on the actors, aims and methods of war. Contrary to amoral realism, this theory allows for ethical and moral considerations, precisely in order to establish the rules of war. Jus ad bellum has 6 major regulations;

1. Just cause - International law allows countries to defend themselves in the event of an armed attack and, if necessary, to defend other countries in the event of an attack.

2. Right intention - There must be objective and subjective reasons and intentions for war to be moral

3. A public declaration by the responsible authority

4. Last resort - War must be a last resort

5. Probability of success

6. Proportionality - The overall destruction resulting from the use of force must be outweighed by the good achieved.

The other large group is jus in bello , which refers to; Justice in wartime, how wars should be fought and conducted. It is also rule-bound, but for now I would like to highlight only 2 important ones. Discrimination means that force must only be applied against political leadership and military forces to minimize civilian casualties, it has discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Along the line with proportionality. However, even if we think about the just war theory, some criticisms arise. The concept of a 'just' war is very subjective and therefore more easily manipulated. Most of all because it is difficult to reach a common consensus on the criteria to be applied.  

Several theories have attempted to provide a definable explanation for the justification for war, which also means that each theory has both strengths and weaknesses. However, the question of whether war could be abolished, and if so, how and what would replace it, must have been raised by all of them.