Recent acts of war violence from Russia on the ground and air space of most cities in Ukraine bringing Russia to full scale of war as it underestimated Ukraine’s resistance.
Thousands of victim and refugees are not just numbers, a life of loving mother, a brave of loyal soldier, a future of smiling children and many more dies innocently. The shelling and bombing continues city by city as its goal not yet accomplished to done Special Operation, but plan to war for land grabbing.
Most of worlds citizen and country leaders react in the huge and massive sympathy for the victims, from formal diplomatic speak, street protester, sending equipments, or political moves such as cutting economic ties with aggressor. Some are in neutral stance while the other support its aggression.
Is a war an ancient method of problem solving?
As a civilian we less knowing what really most important of problem solving by make a war. Indeed, conflict of interest and idea sometime differ from head to head and always exist and its naturally because we are not a robot which programed to do what exactly the commands given. Because humans can think, socials, learning, build technology, and continue to exist to the intergalactic exploration era, as the time passing by and because of evolution, today human almost lost its natural physical ability to make violence to others, you don’t have claws as sharp as tigers claw to scratch your siblings, but you have colored nails, you don’t have teeth as sharp as Saber-tooth Kitty š to bite your boyfriend eh š Quoted from Dalai Lama, as he said “War is outdated way” and that’s way his vision for keeping peace.
Why a country going to war?
Data show there are many wars still on going escalation, thousands victim, billion and counting spends for funding war. There are countries tighten their security measure by conflict in another countries and willing going to war to calm it, some country threaten by armed separatist movement who doing violence with burning and shelling villages then claim their territory but its government not take a decision to war on them. Then we know a little that a war is not just simply a military action to offense or to defense. It has reasons that should considered in Geo-spatial, historical, political and economical views.
Sourced from Just-War Criteria that has Three Versions, we will learn what is it and how the war (if it) should start and end (Right to war, Right in War and proportionally to end it) here the newest version
Just-War Criteria
A. Jus ad bellum (Right to war)
- Just cause against a real and certain danger
- Competent authority
- Comparative justice
- Right intention
- Last resort
- Probability of success
- Proportionality of ends
B. Jus in bello (Right in war)
- Proportionality of means
- Discrimination, i.e., noncombatant immunity
- Right intention
Source: (United States Catholic Conference 1993)
A. Jus ad bellum
1. Just Cause
The purpose of the war must be to enhance and further peace and justice by righting some grievous public wrong. Private wars to correct private wrongs are, therefore, not justified. The traditional causes listed in the first version in Table 1 establish the general categories of legitimate purposes.
2. Competent (Legitimate or Lawful) Authority
This is first and foremost a prohibition against private war. Only properly constituted public authorities may decide for war. Not only must the public authority be competent in the general sense of being a legitimate sovereign, it (or its ally) must also be competent in the particular sense of being the legitimate sovereign over the territory under dispute in the war. For example, during the Opium Wars, Great Britain was a competent authority to wage war in the general sense of being an internationally recognized sovereign, but she was not competent in the particular sense of being the legitimate sovereign of China, and, therefore, able to legislate whether the Chinese would or would not import opium. Until the 14th century, this criterion was used to disallow revolutionary wars because their leaders were not sovereign authorities.
3. Comparative Justice
In general, the justice of oneās cause must be significantly greater than that of the adversary. This criterion forces each side to consider the position and perspective of the other side. The Declaration makes this comparison implicitly throughout, but, in the transition from the philosophical to the practical reasons for independence, it explicitly emphasizes the gross imbalance in comparative justice. While the Americans are seeking “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
4. Right Intention
Despite the fact that the war will produce unintended evil consequences, oneās own intentions must be good. This means not fighting out of a desire for revenge or to injure others, but only for a just cause, avoiding unnecessarily destructive acts or seeking unreasonable conditions such as unconditional surrender, and reconciling at the first opportunity. Implicit in a right intention is a public declaration of war. For, out of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” a clear public declaration of the warās causes and aims is required to show the rightfulness of oneās intentions.
5. Last Resort
Since war is, at best, the lesser of two evils, it should be chosen only as a last resort. Thus, the intended results of the war must be judged in relation to (1) the accumulating injustice if nothing is done; (2) the delayed arrival of justice if other less decisive options are chosen; and (3) the unintended harmful consequences (both known and unknown) of the war. In the Declaration, last resort is shown not just by the “prudence” shown by the Colonists, but also by the fact that:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time. . . . We have reminded them. . . . We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them. . . . But to no avail, “They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity.” Consequently, as a last painful resort, “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.”
6. Probability of Success
This criterion is primarily an injunction against lost causes. Beyond prohibiting lost causes, this criterion, when combined with right intention, suggests that one should avoid the even greater evils that will result from defeat in war. This is the only criterion that the Declaration does not address.
7. Proportionality of Ends
The good to be realized must be greater than the evil inflicted. In a world of limited resources and limited effects, the ends never justify the means. Only a relatively few actions can be justified as proportional to and compatible with the ends sought. The handling of this point in the Declaration is quite weak. The only explicit reference allows, “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” However, the entire Declaration is also suffused with a feeling that royal tyranny has become entirely unacceptable and, hence, that a return to good government is well worth the evils of war.
B. Jus in bello
Having organized a debate that led to a decision to wage war, new issues, questions and dilemma arise. During the course of the war, one must ensure that the means selected:
1. Discrimination of Means
To minimize the warās evil consequences and maximize its good consequences, only military facilities and persons should be attacked, and these should be attacked with the minimum amount of force required to achieve the objectives of the attack. In other words, the principle of noncombatant immunity must be upheld. In this regard, did the carpet bombing of German and Japanese cities uphold the principle of noncombatant immunity within the limits of the principle of double effect? Did the bombing attack military targets?
2. Proportionality of Means
None of the acts of war may be so devastating as to render the whole war unjust by increasing the unintended evil effects to the point where they overwhelm the intended good effects. For example, was the destruction of German and Japanese cities disproportionate to the good produced by their destruction? What about the destruction of hospitals and civilian facilities in Ukraine?
3. Right Intention
The aim of military operations must be to achieve reconciliation and peace as expeditiously as possible. Their aim cannot be vengeance or wanton destruction. Even during combat, individuals, units, and governments must keep their emotions under control. In this regard, how did the carpet bombing speed reconciliation?
Source : Just-War Criteria, 1996, Brien Hallett - University of HawaiiāManoa
