Who determines what reasons are a just reason to go to war?

Cam Hainey

Professor Shirk

International Politics

December 3^rd, 2017

Just War Theory

            When looking at just war theory and the two main components that make up whether a war is just or not it brings up the question about who determines if the reasons that those in war consider just are truly a just reason to go to war. The article we had to read for class (Gillian, 2017) and from class discussion, there are two main principles that make up whether or not a war can be considered just or not. But in Gillian, it also suggests that many theorists want to add another components /conditions to the Just War Theory in determining if a war is just. However the theorists might be missing a key component in determining what reasons make a war just. That reason being who decides what reasons are just for everyone and what aren’t just reasons for everyone. We have been discussing all semester that people from different locations vary in there opinions and beliefs. Those can also impact their views on what constitutes as a just reason to go to war.

            I believe that this reality that people in the world differ in opinions and some people from some regions have certain beliefs, which will influence what, they believe to be just and in a different region they have different beliefs that view those same reasons as being unjust. In the theory of a just war, who determines what constitutes the reason to go to war as being just and whether justice is being conducted within war? The second part of that question I think is given to us through the Geneva Convention, which constitutes what actions during war are allowed and what aren’t allowed. But who determines if those reasons are a just reason to go to war. From learning previously in class and other classes taken at Stonehill, terrorist groups believe the attacks they carry out and the people they kill are just to there cause and they obviously believe that their cause is a just one. No body is going to believe that what they are fighting for isn’t a just reason. Without having a set standard of what is a just reason or having a particular group determine whether a nations reason to go to war with another is a just one, we could see how terrorists groups might have just reasons to go to war. Now that being said, terrorist groups are a special case, since a war is between two recognized states and a terrorist group, which isn’t a state, can’t technically be in a war. But when looking at them, along with the other examples discussed in class (drone attacks) and in the article (targeted assassinations) we can see how they might have just reasons for the actions they commit. But does that really make them a justified if one particular side views them as being such? I think that when looking at what reasons for war make it a just one most interesting is that there are so many differentiating views in the world and international community, how can one particular group of people look at a war from a distance and say that one side had a more just side than another. A war between two religious groups for instance, to one group in a religious war, they have the belief that their reason is just because of their beliefs, while the other group thinks the same about their reason for their beliefs. Just War Theory seems to bring up interesting ideas about what truly is a just reason to go to war.