jus ad bellum is the condition that war has to fulfill for it to be considered just
Q.According to experts, jus ad bellum is the condition that war has to fulfill for it to be considered just. In simpler terms, the phrase refers to whether or not an individual or a group has a just cause for going to war. Some of the conditions that make up the requirements of jus ad bellum include just cause, which can be reflected in a situation where a state violates a section of the international agreement, and such violation could warrant military intervention. But war cannot be the last resort if diplomatic efforts can help resolve the situation without engaging military force. Proportionality, as another condition, refers to the idea that for a war to be just the response must be proportionate to the suffered wrong. To a higher degree, the good that one is protecting must be worth the harm that one is inflicting. A reasonable chance of success is another condition of jus ad bellum, and it is presumed that one should start a war only if there is a reasonable chance of success (Frowe, n.d). Legitimate authority is another condition which offers the perception that a war can be just if there is an engagement of legitimate authority or appropriate body. This is achieved only when the head of the warring state sanctions a war. The condition of the right intention is another fundamental aspect that is closely linked to the idea of just cause. The actual motivation when resorting to war must be morally appropriate despite having the right reasons. Last resort is another condition to be fulfilled to have a just war. This is a requirement that goes in line with the idea of self-defense, which is applicable when all other means of averting a threat have been exhausted. Public declaration of war as a condition of jus ad bellum stipulates that war should be publicly declared as it is essential in several respects.
- jus in bello to a higher degree refers to the just conduct of war. The concept has two conditions, with the first being the requirement that force can only be imposed in a manner that discriminates non-combatants and combatants. The other condition is that the force to be used should generate harm that is proportional to the anticipated military benefit (Enemark, n.d). A clear example can be witnessed from how the precision-guided munition warfare has to a higher degree increased the expectations society has concerning the minimization of non-combatant casualties.
Q pre-emptive wars, as presented by researchers, is the kind of war waged when responding to imminent threats. Preventive war, on the other hand, refers to the idea of exploiting existing strategic advantages by denying another state the ability to pose as a threat (Frowe, n.d). From a just war theory point of view, preemptive war is considered to be morally permissible, especially from the point that for a just war to ensue, the situation must be that there will the risk of oneself when not engaging in fighting.
QThe doctrine of double effect refers to the permissibility of an action that will likely result in serious harm like the death of human beings. On the other hand, some conditions should be met for the action to be morally permissible. The first condition is that the action to be carried out should be morally permissible or hmorally right (Masek, 2010). The second condition is that a good result should be the causal outcome of the bad result. The other condition is that any form of an adverse outcome should not be intended.
QExperts contend that the use of military drones creates specific problems and risks despite presenting numerous benefits. Some of the possible risks associated with the use of drones are the fact that it lowers the threshold for force through inhibiting the often long-term and difficult work of addressing the root causes of conflicts through political and diplomatic means. Another problem caused by military drones is the possibility of transferring the cost and risk of war to civilians. Studies have shown that without ‘boots on the ground, ‘ airstrikes are likely to be more dangerous for civilians (Dowd, 2013). On the other hand, it is correct that the use of military drones in the hypothetical strike against North Korea raises the risk of transferring the cost of war from soldiers to civilians. This is a likely result looking at the previous airstrikes that have led to the death of thousands of civilians. North Korea is also expected to face the risk of a permanent war due to a lack of opportunity to address the root cause of conflict.
Q the wrongful intention principle states that it is morally wrong to intend to carry out whatever it is morally wrong to do (McMahan, 2009). The principle to a higher degree is frequently used to argue against nuclear deterrence.
QMutual disarmament primarily involves two countries, with each side claiming to favor mutual disarmament (Walzer, n.d). One of the advantages of mutual disarmament is that it reduces the chances of a physical war, and there is the protection of civilian lives. The disadvantage of mutual disarmament can be reflected from the perspective that it is an agreement that only involves two countries, which raises the prospect of other states still using the weapons.
Q Unilateral disarmament, on the other hand, is policies involving only one country from the perspective of reducing the use of particular weapons. The policy renounces weapons without getting the concession from potential or actual rivals. Unilateral disarmament to a higher degree advocate for peace and usually involves limiting such weapons of mass destruction (Walzer, n.d.). One disadvantage of unilateral disarmament is that its weakness will invite war.
QThe moral arguments in favor of North Korea processing nuclear weapons and missiles as a deterrent force is based on the notion it creates a bargaining chip for the country. With the adoption of nuclear weapon technology, other nations are forced to listen to what North Korea has to say. The weapons to a higher degree help in reducing the threat faced by North Korea’s military forces. This is an assumption based on the fact that the weapons are launched remotely, and the threat of casualties is less (Ganguly & Kapur, 2008). Nuclear weapons as a deterrent force have also prevented the emergence of another global war. The threat of being over-powered, as presented by experts, is significant towards preventing the world’s superpowers from escalating a conflict.
Q Some of the moral arguments against North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles as a deterrent force include the idea that it is a primary human-made contribution towards exposing people to radiation. This is primarily linked to the fact that each test results in the unrestrained release of radioactive materials into the environment (Ganguly & Kapur, 2008). There are also allegations that nuclear weapon detonations are highly linked to cancer development. Researchers link ionizing radiation as a factor that creates carcinogens in humans. There are also moral arguments that North Korea undergoes direct costs that are attributed to the nuclear weapons program. The expense of maintaining an entire portfolio has, over the years, proved to be expensive, and opponents believe that the money spent can be used in food development.
Long answer questions
A precise analysis of the case about the military strike against North Korea shows that the military action is not justified under just war theory. Evidence shows that such an attack would not meet various requirements of Jus ad bellum. For instance, the condition of just cause for war refers to a military act that violates the sovereignty of a state. However, the case has not presented any point where North Korea violated the sovereignty of the United States. The condition of proportionality will equally not have been met, considering that the good that the United States would have been protecting is not worth the kind harm they will likely impose on North Korea. The military strike seemingly does not guarantee a reasonable chance of success, looking it from the point that North Korea would probably fight back as a way of self-defense. Furthermore, the issue of nuclear weapons puts North Korea in a better position of raging a cruel war against the attacker. The condition of the right intention will also not have been met through the military strike. This is a requirement that holds the notion that a state-sanctioned killing can only be permissible when the main aim is correcting or preventing an injustice (Frowe, n.d ). The conditions of jus ad bellum, on the other hand, justifies the strike under just war theory, considering that the force to be used is expected to generate harm that is proportional to the anticipated military benefit.
According to experts, North Korea is justified to defend itself when mounted by the military strike. However, it remains to be a matter of discussion on whether the form of defense can include the use of nuclear weapons against the United States. Reports from multiple sources show that North Korea is not justified in using nuclear weapons when attacked by a military strike. This is an assumption primarily linked to the notion that nuclear weapons can only be used when a similar kind of nuclear weapon attacks a state. Self-defense is always impossible when a nuclear weapon strikes a country; therefore, in such a context, the only compensating step is the threat to respond in kind (Press et al. .m 2013). A military strike, therefore, does not call for the use of a nuclear weapon as the ideal strategy. North Korea can only do so when confronted by a nuclear adversary. While deterrence is likely the best option for North Korea to adopt, both states will have to worry about the other’s readiness to attack. It is worth considering that the use of nuclear weapons can result in a total destruction, which leads to loss of civilian lives.