The Reality Behind Politicians’ Manipulation of Just War Principles

by – L. Richardson

The just war theory – a doctrine meant to ensure ethical conduct during warfare – has become a smokescreen for politicians abusing moral authority in war justifications. These self-proclaimed arbiters of sovereign legitimacy have systematically betrayed the core principles governing the last-resort use of armed force, instead exploiting the illusion of just war criteria to rubber-stamp their realpolitik agendas. 3 From manufacturing pretexts under the facade of “just cause” to twisting “right intentions” for strategic interests, political deception in war ethics has reached farcical depths, exposing the hypocrisy underlying their proclamations of adherence to codes of moral warfare. 1

This exposé will unravel how the sacred precepts of just war theory – sovereign authority, just cause, right intentions, proportionality, and more – have been cynically instrumentalized by ruling elites, the very entities entrusted with upholding these principles, to provide a veneer of righteousness to their militaristic ambitions. It will bear the systematic betrayal of war ethics and the illusion of sovereign legitimacy in war declarations that have enabled politicians’ misuse of moral authority as a pretext for advancing naked self-interest on the global chessboard.

General Principles of Just War Theory

The just war theory, a doctrine meant to ensure ethical conduct during warfare, outlines several fundamental principles that must be adhered to for a war to be considered morally justified. These principles, including just cause, right intention, proportionality, and more, serve as guidelines for determining when armed force is permissible and how it should be conducted.

War is justified under certain conditions.

The principles of the justice of war stipulate that there must be a just cause, the war should be a last resort, it must be declared by a proper authority, the decision should be made with the right intention of bringing about peace, there must be a reasonable chance of success, and the end should be proportional to the means used. 5 6 10

Called by a sovereign authority

The notion of proper authority is generally accepted to reside in the state’s sovereign power. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 specifically grants Congress the power “to declare War,” which unquestionably gives the legislature the authority to initiate hostilities [48]. 7

Has a just cause

Possessing a just cause is considered the first and arguably the most critical condition of jus ad bellum (moral justifications for going to war) [49]. Most theorists hold that initiating acts of aggression is unjust and gives a group a just cause to defend itself [50]. 5

Combatants have morally right intentions.

The possession of the right intention is ostensibly less problematic. The general idea is that a nation waging a just war should be doing so for the cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest or aggrandizement [50]. 5

Qualifying conditions from the theory of double-effect

The principle of discrimination, central to jus in bello (moral principles to follow during war), is closely tied to the doctrine of double effect. This doctrine states that actions with good and bad consequences are permissible if the lousy effect is not intended. 4 However, the doctrine of double effect is considered too lenient, as it does not capture the extent to which combatants should seek to avoid harming civilians. 4

Michael Walzer proposed an interpretation of the principle of discrimination that corrects this difficulty. He suggests considering the principle of a double intention, where intentionality relates to both the intended and unintended effects. The unintended impact should involve an intention to reduce the risk of civilian harm, “a positive commitment to save civilian lives.” 4 5 Combatants must act to reduce the risk of damage to civilians, going beyond merely avoiding the intention to harm them. 4

Sovereign Authority

War must be called by a sovereign authority.

The just war theory mandates that wars can only be declared by a proper sovereign authority, typically the governing body of a political community or nation-state. 15 This principle stems from the notion that the decision to wage war, with its grave consequences and potential loss of life, must be made by a legitimate and recognized authority acting on behalf of the collective interests of the people. 15

In the United States, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power “to declare War” under Article I, Section 8 [51]. 14 Historically, all formal declarations of war by the United States have been preceded by a presidential request to Congress, citing compelling reasons such as armed attacks on American territory or threats to the nation’s sovereign rights and interests. 14 The last formal declaration of war was enacted in 1942 against Romania during World War II. 14

Defense of the common good

The principle of sovereign authority is closely tied to waging war to defend the common good or in response to grave injustice. 15 Most scholars agree that a just war must have a just cause, such as protecting the collective well-being of the political community or responding to severe violations of justice. 15 This requirement aims to prevent wars from being waged solely for individual or narrowly defined interests, ensuring that the decision to engage in armed conflict is made with the broader societal good in mind. 15

The distinction between wars by nations and sedition by private citizens

It is crucial to distinguish between wars waged by sovereign nations and acts of sedition or insurrection carried out by private citizens or groups within a nation. 17 18 While wars are armed conflicts between countries or sovereign entities, sedition refers to the incitement of individuals to violently rebel against the authority of their government. 17 18 Insurrection, on the other hand, involves the actual acts of violence and rebellion against the established order. 18

In the United States, seditious conspiracy and insurrection are serious federal crimes, as they undermine constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the fundamental right of all citizens to participate equally in the democratic process. 18 Acts of sedition and insurrection are not protected under the guise of just war theory, as they do not emanate from a legitimate sovereign authority acting in the interests of the common good [52]. 17 18

The distinction between wars waged by sovereign nations and seditious acts by private citizens is crucial in upholding the principles of just war theory and maintaining the integrity of the international order. 17 18 While nations may engage in armed conflicts under certain conditions outlined by the just war doctrine, individuals or groups cannot claim the same moral justification for violently subverting the established authority and undermining the democratic process. 17 18

Just Cause

A war is only just if it is fought for a reason that carries sufficient moral weight and is justified [53]. 1 The country wishing to use military force must demonstrate a just cause. 1 The leading just cause is to correct a grave wrong or violation that has occurred. 2 7 Sometimes, a war fought to prevent an immense wrong from happening may also be considered a just war. 3

The enemy deserves an attack due to some fault.

According to St. Augustine, war has three causes: defending against attack, recapturing things taken, and punishing people who have done wrong [54]. 7 A war of punishment would only be just if it was proportional to the crime and the only way to achieve the desired end. 9 In other words, a just war can be waged when recovering goods, restoring legitimate situations, or reinstating order and justice violated by a people. 12

Avenge a wrong

One of the clearest examples of a just cause is self-defense against an aggressor, such as when an enemy has crossed borders and invaded territory. 4 Another common justification is putting right a violation of human rights so severe that force is the only sensible response [55]. 5 10 As St. Augustine states, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects [56].” 12

Punish for refusing to make amends.

A war can be considered just if waged against a country that refuses to adequately punish its citizens who acted unjustly against an offended nation. 12 The use of force may be justified to correct a “grave, public evil” such as aggression or massive violation of the fundamental rights of whole populations by a nation unwilling to make amends. 8

Restore what was seized unjustly.

According to St. Augustine’s criteria, a just war can be fought to “restore what it has seized unjustly.” 7 12 In essence, a just cause exists when one group is morally responsible for wrongfully seizing or threatening to wrong others, making them liable to military attack as a means of redressing the wrong. 11

Ultimately, a war is just if force is the only way to stop the “triumph of evil” 10 and put right acts “that shock the moral conscience of mankind.” 11 However, this notion of just cause has been systematically abused by politicians to justify wars serving their strategic interests rather than a legitimate moral imperative. 1

Right Intentions

The principle of right intention stipulates that a war must be waged with the proper motives and moral purpose. 29 It encompasses both the avoidance of malicious intentions and the positive aim of securing a justly ordered peace. 29

Advancement of good and avoidance of evil

Legitimate intentions for waging war include creating, restoring, or keeping a just peace, righting a grave wrong, and assisting the innocent. 25 The only legitimate intention is to secure peace for all involved. 30 Any use of force must be merciful and seek a just peace, ruling out vengeance and aggression. 30

As St. Augustine advised, wars should be waged not out of choice but necessity, with the spirit of a peacemaker aiming to restore order and limit violence only to what is required for deterring aggression. 30 The intention must never be driven by hatred, cruelty, or a desire for domination. 29

Unjust reasons: greed, cruelty, vengeance

Impermissible motives that render war unjust include seeking power, demonstrating state might, grabbing territory or resources, enslaving people, pursuing personal or national glory, and acting out of hatred or vengeance against the enemy. 25 30 Such malicious intentions make it easier to dehumanize the adversary, increasing the likelihood of atrocities and war crimes being committed. 25

Aquinas explicitly rules out “evil intentions” like “the desire for harming, the cruelty of avenging, an unruly and implacable animosity, the rage of rebellion, [and] the lust of domination [57].” 29 Wars driven by these motives often lead to an unjust peace that breeds further conflict. 25

Just reasons: secure peace, punish evildoers, uplifting good

The positive aspect of right intention involves waging war to “secure peace, of punishing evildoers, and of uplifting the good.” 29 It focuses on the moral purpose of using force – achieving a justly ordered community and the peace that comes with it. 29

Aquinas states the right intention is “the purpose of establishing or restoring a disordered peace,” echoing Augustine’s notion of not seeking “peace to be at war, but [going] to war that we may have peace.” 29 The intention must never be for “aggrandizement, or cruelty,” but solely for restoring justice and order violated by an aggressor nation. 29

Ultimately, right intention requires having a mind focused on the moral imperative of peace rather than selfish interests, with force being the last resort to correct grave public evils when all other means have failed. 30 However, politicians have systematically undermined this principle by distorting moral arguments to serve their strategic ambitions. 1

Qualifying Conditions

Cannot intend intrinsically evil actions

Specific actions are intrinsically evil and can never be morally justified, regardless of intentions or circumstances. Killing innocent civilians, especially women and children, falls squarely into this category. 35 No political grievances, historical injustices, or religious beliefs can ever provide justification for such heinous acts of violence against non-combatants. 35 The intentional targeting of innocents is an intrinsic evil that must be universally condemned and prohibited without exception. 35

The Catholic moral tradition, grounded in natural law and Aristotelian ethics, offers clear guidance on identifying and rejecting intrinsically evil acts. 35 It insists that moral goodness lies in the rectitude of the act itself, independent of intentions or circumstances. 35 An inherently evil act, such as the murder of innocents, can never be rendered morally permissible, no matter the purported justifications or goals. 35

Respect for non-combatants

A fundamental principle of just war theory is the immunity of non-combatants from intentional harm. 32 Their existence and activities lie outside the essence of war, which is the killing of combatants engaged in armed conflict. 32 Even in the fog of war, when distinguishing between civilians and combatants may be challenging, the onus remains on military forces to identify legitimate targets and avoid indiscriminate attacks that endanger innocent lives. 32

As Michael Walzer argues in “Just and Unjust Wars,” a lack of clear identification does not grant governments the right to kill indiscriminately. 32 If uncertainty exists, the presumption must favor civilian status, and attacks must be withheld. 32 This principle recognizes the inherent dignity and right to life of non-combatants, who must be shielded from the ravages of war to the greatest extent possible. 32

Minimize civilian casualties

While the principle of discrimination seeks to protect civilians from intentional targeting, the principle of proportionality requires tempering the extent and violence of warfare to minimize collateral damage and unintended casualties [58]. 32 Any offensive action must remain strictly proportional to the legitimate military objective, avoiding excessive force that could harm civilians disproportionately. 32

The ethical analysis must weigh an individual’s complicity in aiding the war effort against the logical proximity of their actions to the actual combat operations. 32 Greater moral weight is assigned to those more directly involved in the war machine, while those further removed may retain a stronger claim to immunity from harm. 32

However, even when minimizing civilian casualties is a strategic consideration, it must also be recognized as a moral and legal obligation that military forces are duty-bound to uphold. 34 Accountability measures, such as demotions and convictions, are vital for ensuring that individuals within the military take seriously their duty to prevent civilian harm and abide by the laws of armed conflict. 34

The principles of just war theory, including the qualifying conditions outlined above, serve as moral guardrails against the unbridled use of force and the dehumanization of non-combatants. Yet, as history has shown, these principles have been systematically disregarded and undermined by politicians seeking to justify their militaristic ambitions through moral obfuscation and the distortion of ethical precepts. 36

Proportionality

The principle of proportionality is a crucial tenet of just war theory, acting as a moral restraint on using force and violence in armed conflict. It stipulates that the violence must be proportional to the initial provocation or attack. 41 The means should be commensurate with the ends, and the force used should not exceed what is necessary to address the injury or injustice. 41 States are prohibited from using excessive force beyond what is required to attain the limited objective of redressing the grievance. 41

Good achieved must outweigh the evil of war.

Proportionality encompasses the notion that the relevant expected benefits of waging war must outweigh the anticipated costs and evils it will inflict. 39 If multiple options meet this initial requirement, the principle demands choosing the course of action that will likely result in the lowest overall costs, holding other factors constant. 39 The goal is to achieve a net positive outcome by ensuring that the good achieved through military intervention surpasses the inherent evils and suffering caused by the war. 39

Proportionality also incorporates considerations of last resort, as Hurka argues. 39 It requires evaluating whether a military option is necessary or if nonviolent alternatives could achieve the desired just cause with fewer costs and casualties. 39 The principle of proportionality demands a holistic assessment of the relevant goods and evils a policy is likely to cause, unlike the last resort condition, which primarily addresses whether a military or nonmilitary approach should be taken. 39

War as a last resort

The principle of last resort stipulates that all nonviolent options must be exhausted before using force can be justified. 41 A just war can only be waged once all other diplomatic avenues have been pursued and have failed to achieve the desired just cause. 41 This condition recognizes the inherent destructiveness of war. It seeks to minimize its occurrence by mandating that it be treated as an absolute last resort when all other peaceful means have been exhausted. 41

However, some scholars argue that the last resort requirement is redundant when considered alongside the principle of proportionality. 40 They contend that proportionality already accounts for attempting nonviolent alternatives before resorting to war, as it requires choosing the option that inflicts the least harm on innocents while still having a reasonable chance of achieving the just cause. 40 Under this view, the last resort condition becomes subsumed within the broader proportionality principle, rendering it unnecessary as a separate criterion. 40

Reasonable hope of success

The principle of reasonable hope stipulates that there must be a realistic prospect of success for a war to be considered just. 41 Arms should not be used, and lives should not be sacrificed in a futile cause or when the probability of achieving the desired outcome is exceedingly low. 41 This principle emphasizes the need to weigh the costs and benefits of waging war carefully, ensuring that human life and economic resources are not wasted on efforts that are almost certain to fail. 41

By requiring a reasonable chance of success, just war theory aims to prevent the unnecessary loss of life and suffering resulting from engaging in unwinnable conflicts. 41 It recognizes the grave consequences of war. It demands that the decision to wage it be grounded in a realistic assessment of the likelihood of achieving the intended just cause rather than being driven by blind idealism or misguided ambitions. 41

Use minimal force necessary.

In addition to the overall proportionality of the war’s objectives, the principle also extends to the conduct of warfare, known as jus in bello. 41 It requires that the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives be used, tempering the extent of violence in warfare to minimize destruction and casualties. 41 This aspect of proportionality overlaps with the principle of discrimination, which mandates the protection of non-combatants and the avoidance of indiscriminate attacks that endanger innocent lives. 41

The principle of proportionality serves as a moral guardrail against the unbridled use of force, demanding that military actions remain strictly proportional to the legitimate aims and avoid excessive violence that could result in disproportionate harm to civilian populations. 41 It recognizes the inherent humanity of all individuals, combatants and non-combatants alike. It seeks to minimize the suffering inflicted during armed conflicts. 41

However, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, these principles of just war theory have been systematically disregarded and undermined by politicians seeking to justify their militaristic ambitions through moral obfuscation and the distortion of ethical precepts. 1 The principle of proportionality, like other tenets of just war theory, has been cynically instrumentalized by ruling elites to provide a veneer of righteousness to their naked pursuit of strategic interests on the global chessboard. 1

Conclusion

After analyzing the profound betrayal of just war principles by politicians throughout history, it is evident that the sacred precepts meant to ensure ethical conduct during warfare have been systematically undermined and distorted to serve strategic self-interests. From manufacturing pretexts under the guise of “just cause” to twisting “right intentions” for realpolitik ambitions, the systemic abuse of moral authority in justifying wars has reached farcical depths, exposing the hypocritical façade behind proclamations of adherence to codes of ethical warfare.

The harsh reality is that politicians cannot be trusted with the solemn responsibility of upholding just war theory – a doctrine meant to temper the horrors of armed conflict has instead been weaponized as a smokescreen for their militaristic agendas. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! THE GLOBALIST ELITES ARE USING THE JUST WAR THEORY AS A COVER FOR THEIR NEW WORLD ORDER DOMINATION SCHEMES [47]! It is high time we reject the manipulation of these sacred principles and hold our leaders accountable for their betrayal of the moral foundations governing the use of force.

FAQs

What are the criticisms of the just war theory?

The main issue with the just war theory is its potential to mislead individuals into believing that a war is morally acceptable simply because it is deemed “just.” This perspective overlooks the fundamental notion that all wars are inherently harmful. While a just war may be considered a lesser evil and thus permissible under certain conditions, it remains an undesirable and dangerous event.

How is just war defined in political theory?

In political theory, a just war must satisfy three critical criteria, as outlined by Aquinas. First, it must be initiated by a legitimate authority or sovereign. Second, it should be fought for a just cause, specifically in response to an opponent’s wrongdoing. Third, the intentions behind waging the war must be pure, aiming to promote good and prevent evil.

What does realism say about just war theory?

The realist perspective on just war theory is critical. It argues that justifications for war often mask political motives rather than moral ones. Realists contend that war should always be considered a last resort. They are skeptical of reasons such as defending a leader’s honor, viewing them as excuses rather than legitimate moral grounds for conflict.

Who is credited with formulating the principles of just war?

The principles of just war, particularly those concerning the decision to go to war (Jus ad Bellum), are primarily attributed to the contributions of Christian theologians and philosophers, with St. Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) being the most notable figure among them. His work laid the foundational moral guidelines for evaluating the justifiability of war entry [59].