Legal Committee - World Model United Nations

also known as simply the “just war tradition,” involves
considering the historical body of rules or agreements that
have applied in various wars across the ages. 4
The Geneva and Hague conventions, for example, are
historical rules, which aim to limit the extent and barbarity of
warfare. These conventions may be referenced in prosecuting
transgressors, but it is the job of ethicists to examine these
institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as
well as to inquire into whether aspects of the conventions
ought to be changed. The just war tradition may also use
examples of philosophers and lawyers throughout the ages to
examine the philosophical ethics of a war.
The just war tradition is commonly applied when enemies
share some array of values and thus recognize each other as
“equals.” In other cases where the enemies clash in religious
beliefs, race, or language and see each other as “less than
human,” war conventions are rarely effective. Only when
the two sides share some moral identity and codes of beliefs
can explicit rules about the form of warfare what kind of
relations should apply in the aftermath of war be discussed.
The incentive to form these conventions is surely that they
can be mutually beneficial, as they help prevent the use of any
underhand tactics or weapons that may lead to an indefinite
series of detrimental acts to both parties. The majority of
just war theorists agree upon the denouncement of a lack of
rules that govern war between belligerents and that the rules
of war should apply equally to all parties involved. Just war
theory should thus be universal and binding on all. 5
Just war theory traces back to the beginnings of war itself.
Early records of collective fighting contain indications of
some moral code used by warriors to limit the potential
detrimental effects of warfare, possibly involving special
consideration of women, children, and the treatment of
prisoners. There are also common instances of deeming
certain acts “honorable” and others “dishonorable,” although
what defines those terms would often be very specific to the
culture. Parts of the Bible contain elements of justification
of war and ethical behavior in war, often tied with divine
intervention. 6
One of the most systematic and famous expositions
commenting upon the morality of war, which is used as a
reference for later Scholastics and Jurists to expand upon,
was that of Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13 th century. In
Summa Theologicae, Aquinas presents the general outline
of what eventually becomes the traditional just war theory
as discussed in modern universities. He discusses not only
the justification of war but also the kinds of activity that are
permissible (for a Christian) in war. Aquinas’s ideas were
eventually expanded and gradually universalized beyond
Christendom – notably, for instance, in relations with the
peoples of America following European incursions into the
continent. Just war theory underwent a revival in the 20 th
century, primarily due the invention of nuclear weapons and
the Vietnam War. 7
Academics have refocused their attention to just war since
the terrorist attacks of 9/11, holding conferences to develop
and consolidate theoretical aspects of the conventions. Just
war theory has become a popular topic in international
relations, political science, philosophy, ethics, and military
history courses. Though the rules and conventions of warfare
have persevered on the battlefields of headline wars in the
past decade, they have also come under greater debate and
scrutiny. Generals have lectured to their troops about rules
of war, and soldiers are taught the just war conventions in
the military academies. Indeed, military law has come a
long way; punishments and consequences for violators and
transgressors are becoming a necessary implementation of
warfare.
Despite all of these emphases on war conventions, war crimes
still do exist: genocide remains an issue, leaders have waged
total war on ethnic groups within or without their borders,
and individual soldiers or guerilla bands have committed
atrocious acts against their enemies. In some cases, no just
war conventions exist at all or the justification of war is
considered beyond the norms of peaceful ethics and above
the law.
Just war theory offers a series of principles that aim to
retain a plausible moral framework for war. From the just
war tradition, theorists distinguish between the rules that
govern the justice of war from those that govern just and
fair conduct in war and the responsibility and accountability
of warring parties after the war. The three aspects are by
no means mutually exclusive, but they offer a set of moral
guidelines for waging war that are neither unrestricted nor
too restrictive. The problem for ethics involves clarifying the
guidelines in particular wars or situations.
The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to
be the following: having just cause, being a last resort, being
declared by a proper authority, possessing the right intention,
having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being
proportional to the means used. 8 These principles, while
having the luxury of flexibility, still contain some gray area
Harvard WorldMUN 2012 Legal 44