James Baquet

A person training to be a military officer must study certain topics: military leadership, for instance; tactics and strategy, the use of arms, the history of war, and so on. But in addition to these practical matters, officers-in-training also study philosophy, specifically military ethics, the effort to answer the question: “What is a just war?”

Some of the issues of conducting a just war include making a distinction between combatants and civilians; maintaining a proportionate use of force; performing only those acts which are necessary to ensure victory; treating prisoners of war fairly; and not committing “evil” acts under cover of wartime conditions.

Another category of ethical behavior has recently been proposed: how the victors treat the vanquished.

But for many, the key question is: “When is going to war justified?”

Some people, called pacifists, answer this question in one word: “Never.” But others maintain thatthe horror of war is justified when it prevents an even more horrible option.

The first concern is the “just cause.” Protection of innocent lives is an acceptable reason for war; capturing property, or punishing real or imagined wrongdoing, is not. Those declaring war must have the right intention.

Another important factor is that war may be declared only by duly constituted authorities — legitimate governments following established procedures. War is not the prerogative of outlaws.

The probability of success is another issue. A futile action will cause unnecessary suffering on one or bothsides of the conflict.

Perhaps the paramount consideration is this: War should be a last resort. A nation should not go to war until all other peaceful alternatives, such as diplomatic negotiations, trade sanctions, etc., have been tried and exhausted.

These principles are, of course, ideals. In the real world of geopolitics, it is rare for any belligerent action to meet all of the criteria of a just war. Furthermore, it is sometimes only in hindsight that a clear judgement can be made — a matter for historians rather than politicians.

Vocabulary:

Which word above means:

1. beaten, conquered

2. looking back (in time)

3. actions meant to force a nation to comply

4. useless

5. in an appropriate amount

6. people who believe in peace at all costs

7. standards of judgment, principles of evaluation

8. chief in importance, supreme

9. national policy based on geography and politics

10. right or privilege