Can Wars Be Just?

War in the twentieth century can be characterised by its particularly brutal nature. As technology advanced it allowed for the creation of new and more deadly weapons, which increased the costs of war substantially. The death tolls amongst both civilians and soldiers in both World Wars bears testament to this. With the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima it appeared that all wars henceforth would be ‘total’ wars. The concept of a ‘just war’ was, therefore, held to have lost its utility (Chomsky, 2002). If wars were to be limitless as a consequence of the means of waging them, then the fundamental tenet of proportionality in just war theory could no longer be applied.

However, due to a delicate balance of power during the Cold War, no one power came to totally dominate world politics in that period and nuclear weapons have luckily not been employed in a war since the end of the Second World War. That the threat of their use still exists is of course a considerable risk.

War has not become total as had been predicted. Instead, it appears to be moving towards a situation in which technology has increased the capability of destruction, yet by the same token, precision has vastly increased and, consequently, discrimination is vastly improved (Nye, 1996; O’ Hanlon, 2000). War, fought at least by the technologically superior states, has become manageable to the point where just war theory may again be employed to assess its application. It appears that suggestions that the just war tradition had become irrelevant were very much premature.

In the post-Cold War era there has been an increase in what might be termed ‘humanitarian interventions’. Such military actions are taken with a view to preventing the large scale killing of a particular ethnic or religious group by another more powerful group. The interventions in Bosnia (Smith, 2005), Kosovo (Kurth, 2001), and East Timor (Smith, 2004) might be deemed as such. Another brand of intervention has developed which might aptly be termed ‘democratic interventions’. These interventions occur to either ensure that democracy is upheld in a state or to forcefully ensure that democracy ‘takes flight’ in that state. The United States has led the field in ‘democratic interventions’, with interventions in Haiti, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq all assumed ‘democratic interventions’ or at least having the aim of instituting democracy as a major ingredient in the mixture. The causus belli in recent wars by the United States has increasingly focused on the defensive, democratic and humanitarian nature of their wars (Haass, 1999). The just war tradition appears to be making a serious re-entry into the field of international relations theory. In fact, just war theory has played a key role in the development of international law as “elements of just war thinking have been incorporated into both treaty and customary international law” (Crawford, 2003: 7) and the principles of the tradition have influenced the practices of many armies, including the United States.

War is the most significant action that states may engage in, affecting all areas of policy formulation. The Bush Administration has sought to characterise the recent Afghanistan war as a just war “by making a positive legal and moral assertion to a right of self-defence (Crawford, 2003: 12).

“Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done” (President Bush, September 20, 2001).

“This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace...we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world” (President Bush, September 11, 2001).

“We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors human liberty...Building this just peace is America’s opportunity, and America’s duty” (President Bush, June 1, 2002).

The just war tradition can trace its origins to St. Augustine’s City of God and has undergone continuous development and redefinition to match the requirements of contemporary war. From the writings of Augustine, Aquinas and Grotius the tradition has advanced to depict the nature of modern warfare and establish the benchmarks by which the ‘justness’ of present wars might be assessed. The contemporary eminent scholars in the tradition include Walzer (2000), Coates (1997), O’ Brien (1981) and Paskins and Dockrill (1979). All agree on the ultimate aim of the just war tradition which is the advancement of peace and inevitably the demise of the tradition itself. “A just war must end in a just peace” (Coates 1997, 286) and it is fought with the intention of bringing about peace in the first place.

Coates (1997) divides the tradition into three elements: (i) just recourse to war (ius ad bellum), (ii) just conduct of war (ius in bello), (iii) just peace in the aftermath of that war (ius ad pacem). They are each separated in their individual analysis but, inevitably, comprise part of a greater whole and if any one is found to be lacking then the claim of a ‘just war’ is nullified.


But can war ever be considered just? Is it ever right to interfere in the internal operation of a state? If we can agree that wars can be just are we impelled to act in the name of justice? With ongoing (almost-) wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan, the crisis in Darfur and Chad and the violence surrounding elections in Zimbabwe, it is important to address the notion of whether or not interventions can be considered just. Is international politics governed by self-interest alone or do higher goals exist? The notion the European Union emerging as a coherent political identity is interesting in terms of military interventions given that many recognise the EU as having a greater propensity towards humanitarianism than the other major global powers. But if this humanitarianism takes the form of military intervention is it justified or merely a continuation of the 'white man's burden'?



- Chomsky, Noam. 2002. ‘The War in Afghanistan’ in Z Magazine, February 1, 2002.
- Coates, A.J. 1997. The Ethics of War. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Crawford, Neta C. 2003. ‘Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War’ in Perspectives on Politics Vol.1 (1).
- Haass, Richard. 1999. Intervention: The use of American military force in the post-Cold War world, revised edition. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
- Kurth, James. 2001. ‘First War of the Global Era: Kosovo and U.S. Grand Strategy’ in War Over Kosovo: Politics and Strategy in a Global Age, eds. Andrew Bacevich and Eliot A. Cohen. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Nye, Joseph. 1996. ‘America’s Information Edge’ in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75 (2).
- O’ Brien, W.V. 1981. The Conduct of a Just and Limited War. New York: Praeger.
- O’ Hanlon, Michael. 2002. ‘A Flawed Masterpiece: Assessing the Afghan Campaign’ in Foreign Affairs Vol. 81 (3).
- Paskins, Barrie and Dockrill, Michael. 1979. The Ethics of War. London: Duckworth.
- Smith, Michael. 2004. The Spying Game: the secret history of British espionage. London: Politico’s Publishing.
- Smith, Gen. Sir Rupert. 2005. The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. London: Penguin Books.
- Walzer, Michael. 2000. Just and Unjust Wars. Third Edition. New York: Basic Books.