Just War Theory Essay

The just war theory provides us two basic conditions that make it permissible to start or partake in a war justly. The first condition is the “jus ad bellum,” which clarifies when it's just for a state to go to war. The second condition is the “jus in bello” which also elaborates on how soldiers can fight a war justly. The moral responsibilities and constraints of soldiers are stated under these two conditions. Constraints such as the avoidance for a soldier to intentionally harm a civilian is one of the basic principles which combatants from both sides of the war are expected to obey. Since, Jus in bello provides equal responsibilities and constraints for soldiers fighting on both (just and unjust) side of the war, under these circumstances,

Soldiers can fight an unjust war justly if they obey Jus in bello, only on the grounds of moral equality amongst all soldiers. Jus in bello prevent civilians from being killed, and the moral equality of soldiers also prevent soldiers in captive to be treated as criminals. If these two things are obeyed, regardless of what side you’re fighting for, your war is being fought justly. Attacking enemy soldiers is permissible because of given consent from both sides. By becoming a soldier, you give your right away not to be attacked, under this circumstance a valid consent is given, therefore it's morally accepted to attack enemy soldiers during a war. An example of someone who fought an unjust war justly is General Rommel. A Nazi general who burned an execute order from the president to avoid executing soldiers in captive. Even though some may question his participation in the war in the first place, and also argue since he’s fighting for the wrong side there is no justification whatsoever for his actions, I will answer all these questions with my arguments above, which strips away any kind of responsibility from him in partaking in the war. Therefore, his actions can only be judged by what he does during the