5cjxburmr

• a competent authority to order the war for a public purpose;• a just cause (such as self-defense);• the means must be proportionate to the just cause;• all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted; and• a right intention on the part of the just belligerent. 183These principles may be reflected in modern law of war rules. For example, the Charterof the United Nations recognizes the inherent right of States to use force in individual orcollective self-defense—a just cause for military action. 184These principles have also been incorporated into military doctrine. 1851.11.1.1 Competent Authority (Right Authority) to Wage War for a PublicPurpose. One longstanding criterion for a just war is that war must be ordered by a competentauthority for a public purpose. This jus ad bellum principle (sometimes called right authority)acknowledges that the resort to military force is a prerogative of the State. 186The criterion that war must be ordered by a competent authority for a public purpose isreflected in the requirement that armed groups must belong to a State to receive the privileges ofcombatant status. 187 This criterion is also reflected in the general denial to private persons of theentitlement to the privileges of combatant status. 188 This criterion is also reflected in the183 WILLIAM O’BRIEN, THE CONDUCT OF JUST AND LIMITED WAR 16 (1981) (“The decision to invoke theexceptional rights of war must be based on the following criteria: there must be competent authority to order thewar for a public purpose; there must be a just cause (it may be self-defense or the protection of rights by offensivewar) and the means must be proportionate to the just cause and all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted;and there must be right intention on the part of the just belligerent.”).184 Refer to § 1.11.4.1 (Use of Force in Self-Defense).185 MARINE CORPS DOCTRINAL PUBLICATION 1-1, Strategy, 93, 95 (1997) (“[T]he just war criteria provide objectivemeasures from which to judge our motives. The effective strategist must be prepared to demonstrate to all sideswhy the defended cause meets the criteria of just war theory and why the enemy’s cause does not. If a legitimateand effective argument on this basis cannot be assembled, then it is likely that both the cause and the strategy arefatally flawed.”).186 See Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133, 160-61 (1795) (Iredell, J., concurring) (“[N]o hostilities of any kind, except innecessary self-defence, can lawfully be practised by one individual of a nation, against an individual of any othernation at enmity with it, but in virtue of some public authority. War can alone be entered into by national authority;it is instituted for national purposes, and directed to national objects; and each individual on both sides is engaged init as a member of the society to which he belongs, not from motives of personal malignity and ill will.”); VATTEL,THE LAW OF NATIONS 235 (3.1.4) (“It is the sovereign power alone, therefore, which has the right to make war.”);GROTIUS, LAW OF WAR & PEACE 97 (1.3.4.2) (“But because the whole state is endangered by war, provision hasbeen made by the laws of almost every state that war may be waged only under the authority of him who holds thesovereign power in the state.”).187 Refer to § 4.6.2 (Belonging to a Party to the Conflict).188 Refer to § 4.18.3 (Private Persons Who Engage in Hostilities – Lack of the Privileges of Combatant Status).40