Many thinkers throughout the history of philosophy believed that there can be such a thing like 'Just War'. It was a result of their trial to combine war with morality. According to just war theory, war can be morally justifiable. The idea of ‘self-defense’ played a central role in the most just war theories. It seems obvious that a person who is attacked has the right to use physical power and, if necessary, to kill his or her attacker in order to defend him- or herself. There are of course very few extreme cases in which self-defensive killing is morally permitted. However, many philosophers argued that just war theory which is based on the idea of self-defense is more consistent than a strong version of pacifism. Nonviolent pacifism, for instance, admits the right to preserve one’s life but none the less excludes the use of all kind of physical power to protect that right. To have a right justifies the use of power to defend the right even though there can be some restrictions. It is therefore not easy to maintain pacifistic creed and to be a conchie.
Two components of just war theory
Interestingly, the weakness of one side does not guarantee the rightness of the other side in the discussion about just war. In fact, the attempt to build a war theory on the conception of self-defense faces serious difficulties. The traditional ways of thinking about the justice of war are consisted of two components. The first one considers the conditions under which “one may rightly go to war.”(jus ad bellum) War can be admitted as, so to speak, the last resort if there is a ‘substantial aggression’, and if it cannot be corrected by non-belligerent means. In addition, the devastation expected from the use of military forces must be outweighed by the good to be achieved. The second component undertakes to specify “what one may rightly do in war.”(jus in bello) It should not be intended to harm or kill innocent civilians directly, and the force used must be proportional to the wrong suffered, and to the possible good that may come. The excessive and unnecessary death or destruction must be avoided.
One of the fundamental problems of just war theory is: the first component, jus ad bellum, accepts the legitimacy of the use of military power only on one side of the conflicting parties, while the jus in bello assumes that war is lawful activity with entitlements and restrictions that are equally given to both sides. The rules of jus in bello imply that the armed forces of each side are entitled to commit acts of war against the other. How can it be then the case that one side is fighting illegally and their war is a crime?
Asymmetric war
Some philosophers and military thinkers pay attention to a new terminology “asymmetric war” in order to get around the above mentioned paradox. This term describes “a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal power interact and attempt to take advantage of their opponents' weaknesses.” For example, we can suppose a situation where one side can have a technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy. An underlying idea of the “asymmetric war” is that we cannot compare the possession of massive killing weapons by a small, politically as well as economically instable country, with the same possession by a huge and stable country. In this context, asymmetric warfare is regarded sometimes as synonymous with terrorism, and terrorism with war itself. If we follow this line of thinking, we are in the position to view the terrorists’ attacks on the U.S.A. or the recent kidnapping in Afghanistan differently.
Either we estimate the ideas implied by the “asymmetric war” positively or not, it is beyond question that the idea of self-defense is only a deficient resource for the justice of war.
Two components of just war theory
Interestingly, the weakness of one side does not guarantee the rightness of the other side in the discussion about just war. In fact, the attempt to build a war theory on the conception of self-defense faces serious difficulties. The traditional ways of thinking about the justice of war are consisted of two components. The first one considers the conditions under which “one may rightly go to war.”(jus ad bellum) War can be admitted as, so to speak, the last resort if there is a ‘substantial aggression’, and if it cannot be corrected by non-belligerent means. In addition, the devastation expected from the use of military forces must be outweighed by the good to be achieved. The second component undertakes to specify “what one may rightly do in war.”(jus in bello) It should not be intended to harm or kill innocent civilians directly, and the force used must be proportional to the wrong suffered, and to the possible good that may come. The excessive and unnecessary death or destruction must be avoided.
One of the fundamental problems of just war theory is: the first component, jus ad bellum, accepts the legitimacy of the use of military power only on one side of the conflicting parties, while the jus in bello assumes that war is lawful activity with entitlements and restrictions that are equally given to both sides. The rules of jus in bello imply that the armed forces of each side are entitled to commit acts of war against the other. How can it be then the case that one side is fighting illegally and their war is a crime?
Asymmetric war
Some philosophers and military thinkers pay attention to a new terminology “asymmetric war” in order to get around the above mentioned paradox. This term describes “a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal power interact and attempt to take advantage of their opponents' weaknesses.” For example, we can suppose a situation where one side can have a technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy. An underlying idea of the “asymmetric war” is that we cannot compare the possession of massive killing weapons by a small, politically as well as economically instable country, with the same possession by a huge and stable country. In this context, asymmetric warfare is regarded sometimes as synonymous with terrorism, and terrorism with war itself. If we follow this line of thinking, we are in the position to view the terrorists’ attacks on the U.S.A. or the recent kidnapping in Afghanistan differently.
Either we estimate the ideas implied by the “asymmetric war” positively or not, it is beyond question that the idea of self-defense is only a deficient resource for the justice of war.