View source for Jus ad bellum

{{short description|Legal doctrine of armed conflict (international law)}}

'''''{{lang|la|Jus ad bellum}}''''' ({{IPAc-en|j|u:|s}} {{respell|YOOS}} or {{IPAc-en|dʒ|ʌ|s}}), literally "right to war" in [[Latin]], refers to "the conditions under which States may resort to war or to the use of armed force in general".<ref>[[Latin (language)|Latin]] for "right to war" {{cite web |date=23 Jan 2015 |title="What are ''jus ad bellum'' and ''jus in bello''?" |url=https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0 |access-date=8 March 2023 |publisher=[[International Committee of the Red Cross]]}}</ref> Jus ad bellum is one pillar of [[just war theory]]. Just war theory states that war should only be condoned under 'just' conditions.<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Crawford |first=Kerry |title=Human Security Theory & Action |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |year=2023 |isbn=978-1442273771 |edition=2nd |location=Lanham, Maryland |pages=104–106}}</ref> Jus ad bellum simply limits the causes for which war can be considered justifiable.<ref name=":02" /> The other parts of just war theory include [[jus in bello]] (just actions in war) and [[jus post bellum]] (justice after war).<ref name=":02" />

== Historical background ==
The history of jus ad bellum dates back to early religious and philosophical ideas. There are references to the idea of morally fought wars dating back to ancient civilizations. Thousands of years later, these ideas still stand in today's society. 

=== Early foundations ===
Many of the ancient civilizations have shown some degree of understanding of just war. One example can be found in Ancient Egypt. Early Egyptians viewed themselves as the cosmological center of civility.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |title=The deep history and dangers of just wars |url=https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/the-deep-history-and-dangers-of-just-wars/#:~:text=How%20far%20back%20in%20time,the%20pharaoh%20to%20wage%20war. |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=Engelsberg ideas |language=sv}}</ref> Therefore they put their faith in the gods alongside the pharaoh to have just reasons to engage in war. These include self defense, defense of their allies and against evil powers.<ref name=":12" /> Beyond the Egyptians, there have also been tracings of these core just war and jus ad bellum elements in Ancient Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Levant and Hatti.<ref name=":12" />

=== Christian just war ===
Many philosophers in the early centuries have dabbled in defining what is ethically and morally acceptable in war. However, [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]] is considered to be the father of just war theory. St. Augustine was a Roman Catholic who constructs the idea from a Christian perspective. He is the credited founder of the term jus ad bellum itself.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Saucedo |first=Yskander Arquimides |date=2017-08-01 |title=St. Augustine's Just War Theory |url=https://dogmadoctrineblog.org/2017/08/01/st-augustines-just-war-theory/ |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=Descendants of Grace Monergistic Agora |language=en}}</ref> Later came philosopher [[St. Thomas Aquinas]] with his [[Summa Theologica|Summa Theologiae]]''.'' Aquinas lists criteria from the Christian perspective that were intended to protect civilians and guarantee that wars were not just fought for the interest of private parties.<ref name="Rochester3">{{cite book |last=Rochester |first=J. Martin |title=The New Warfare: Rethinking Rules for an Unruly World |date=February 19, 2016 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-317-27642-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The Church's Just War Theory - Part 1 |url=http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-church-s-just-war-theory-part-1.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141028173750/http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-church-s-just-war-theory-part-1.html |archive-date=October 28, 2014 |access-date=April 2, 2017 |website=www.catholiceducation.org |language=en-gb}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Just War Theory {{!}} Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/ |access-date=2024-11-01 |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Renaissance period ===
[[Francisco de Vitoria]] and [[Hugo Grotius]] grew the idea of just war theory into international law. Vitoria's main argument presented that war should serve the common good. States should not be going to war for revenge or power. <ref>{{Citation |last=Justenhoven |first=Heinz-Gerhard |title=From Just War to Modern Peace Ethics |chapter=Francisco de Vitoria: Just War as Defense of International Law |date=2012-10-01 |pages=121–136 |chapter-url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110291926.121/html |access-date=2024-11-02 |publisher=De Gruyter |language=en |doi=10.1515/9783110291926.121 |isbn=978-3-11-029192-6}}</ref> Hugo Grotius was another key thinker within the evolution of just war. He has been named father of international law. In his work, ''On the Law of War and Peace,'' Grotius emphasized the need for proportionality and accountability.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ittersum |first=Martine Julia Van |date=2 November 2016 |title=Hugo Grotius: The Making of a Founding Father of International Law |url=https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/42602/chapter/357546015 |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=academic.oup.com |doi=10.1093/law/9780198701958.003.0005}}</ref>

=== Modern international law ===
Today organizations such as [[League of Nations]] and United Nations stand to prevent unjust wars. The League of Nations was one of the first international organizations established with a primary goal of maintaining world peace. It was established in 1920 after [[World War I]] in order to protect the world from dealing with such tragedies again.<ref>{{Cite web |title= Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian|url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league#:~:text=The%20League%20of%20Nations%20was,States%20never%20became%20a%20member. |website=United States of America Department of State Office of the Historian}}</ref> Unfortunately, it was not entirely successful in that mission owing to the occurrence of [[World War II]]. Thus the United Nations was born. In the [[Charter of the United Nations|UN Charter]], Article 2, paragraph 4 states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the [[United Nations]]."<ref>{{cite web |title=United Nations Charter (Full text) |url=https://un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text}}</ref> Article 51 of the [[Charter of the United Nations|UN Charter]] later clarifies: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the [[United Nations]]."<ref>{{cite web |title=United Nations Charter (Full text) |url=https://un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text}}</ref> These put the idea of jus ad bellum into writing by requiring states to agree that they will only use armed force in self-defense, or with the approval of the [[United Nations Security Council]]. 

Since the 1950s, declarations of jus ad bellum have dropped dramatically.<ref name="Fazal3">{{Cite journal |last1=Fazal |first1=Tanisha M. |year=2012 |title=Why States No Longer Declare War |journal=Security Studies |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=557–593 |doi=10.1080/09636412.2012.734227 |s2cid=143983917}}</ref> In "Why States No Longer Declare War" [[Tanisha Fazal]] notes the drop in formal declarations of war since the 1950s.<ref name="Fazal3" /> This may be as a result of the nuance of war in modern times, given the rise of non-state actors such as terrorist groups.

==== Cyberspace ====
One of the more recent topics being discussed in scholarship is the application if international law in the realm of cyberspace. As cyber attacks continue to increase across the globe, a conversation needs to be had about the jurisdiction of cyber crimes. When is the use of force justified in these uncharted spaces? <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dong |first=You |date=November 2019 |title=The Jus ad Bellum in Cyberspace: Where Are We Now and What Next? |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/nzjpubinl17&i=51 |journal=New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=41–66 |via=HeinOnline}}</ref>

== Core principles ==

=== Just cause ===
According to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. This state of peace should be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed had the war not occurred. Wars cannot be fought simply to annex property or install a regime change. Current doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" or preemptive strikes, sometimes associated with the [[Bush Doctrine]], have challenged concepts of right intention/just cause. Right cause includes humanitarian intervention, particularly when actions "[[Martens Clause|shock the conscience]]". The [[responsibility to protect]] covers more in depth the nature of humanitarian intervention.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Anonymous |date=2016-06-29 |title=Jus ad Bellum |url=https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/jus_ad_bellum |access-date=2024-11-03 |website=Beyond Intractability |language=en}}</ref>

=== Legitimate authority ===
The principle of right authority suggests that a war is just only if waged by a legitimate authority. Such authority is rooted in the notion of [[Sovereignty|state sovereignty]].<ref name="Hubert&Weiss3">Don Hubert and Thomas G. Weiss et al. "The Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty". (Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001)</ref> In his ''[[Summa Theologica]]'' [[Thomas Aquinas|St. Thomas Aquinas]] notes that to be a just war, war has not only to be [[Declaration of war|declared]] publicly, but also must be declared by the proper authority.<ref name="Rochester3" />

Proper authority is what differentiates war from murder: "It is the rules of warfare that give the practice meaning, that distinguish war from murder and soldiers from criminals."<ref>{{cite book |last=Finnemore |first=M. |title=Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875 |publisher=Stanford University Press |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-8047-3422-6 |editor=John Boli and George M. Thomas |pages=149–165 |chapter=Rules of war and wars of rules: The international red cross and the restraint of state violence}}</ref> A soldier is treated as a [[prisoner of war]] and not a criminal because they are operating under the proper authority of the state and cannot be held individually responsible for actions committed under the orders of their military leadership.

=== Probability of success ===
According to this principle, there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable.<ref name="Hubert&Weiss3" /> This principle emphasizes that mass violence must not be undertaken if it is unlikely to secure the just cause.<ref name="SEP3">{{Cite web |title=War (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2.1 |access-date=2014-08-27 |website=plato.stanford.edu}}</ref> This criterion is to avoid invasion for invasion's sake and links to the proportionality criteria. One cannot invade if there is no chance of actually winning. However, wars are fought with imperfect knowledge, so one must simply be able to make a logical case that one can win; there is no way to know this in advance. These criteria move the conversation from moral and theoretical grounds to practical grounds.<ref>{{cite book |last=Seybolt |first=Taylor B. |title=Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure |date=January 2007 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-925243-5}}</ref> Essentially, this is meant to gather coalition building and win approval of other state actors.

=== Last resort ===
The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities. Further, in regard to the amount of harm—proportionally—the principle of last resort would support using small intervention forces first and then escalating rather than starting a war with massive force such as [[carpet bombing]] or [[nuclear warfare]].<ref>{{cite web |date=12 June 2015 |title=Just War Theory and the Last of Last Resort - Ethics & International Affairs |url=https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2015/just-war-theory-last-last-resort/ |access-date=April 2, 2017 |website=Ethics & International Affairs |archive-date=21 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150621004346/https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2015/just-war-theory-last-last-resort/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Proportionality ===
The principle of Proportionality is the idea of maintaining a balance. The desire to go to war must balance with the destruction or loss of life that the war will cause. If one is more than the other that is a breach in proportionality. There should never be extreme damage and loss of life for a cause that isn't equally productive. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Anonymous |date=2016-06-29 |title=Jus ad Bellum |url=https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/jus_ad_bellum |access-date=2024-11-03 |website=Beyond Intractability |language=en}}</ref>

== See also ==
* ''[[Casus belli]]''
* ''[[Jus post bellum]]''
* [[Just war theory]]
* [[List of Latin phrases]]
* [[Mandatory war]]
* [[Tyrannicide]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}
==Further reading==
*{{cite book|chapter=[[s:A_manual_of_moral_theology_for_English-speaking_countries/Book_6#206|Book 6: On War]]|title=A manual of moral theology for English-speaking countries|year=1925|publisher=Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd.|first=Thomas|last=Slater S.J.}}

==External links==
* [https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law War & Law]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20131207221121/http://www.crimesofwar.org/ Crimes of War]
* [http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/characteristics-ic Characteristics Of Intractable Conflicts]
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20031019075346/http://newark.rutgers.edu/~natalieb/justwar.htm Rutgers: Book/Reading List]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070813082101/http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE04/Bica04.html Essay hosted at USAF site]
* Joseph R. Cerami, James F. Holcomb (Editors). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=mT8jPxU2dvoC U.S. Army War College guide to strategy]''. Strategic Studies Institute, 2001. {{ISBN|978-1-58487-033-3}}., pp.&nbsp;19–30. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=mT8jPxU2dvoC&pg=PA19 Chapter 3. Ethical issues in War, An overview]'', Cook, Martin L.
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war Stanford encyclopedia entry for war]
* Brander, Kenneth Rabbi. "Is All Fair in Love & War?" Just & Unjust Wars through the prism of Jewish and Secular Thought", [http://rabbikennethbrander.com/is-all-fair-in-love-war-just-unjust-wars-through-the-prism-of-jewish-and-secular-thought-part-1/ part 1] and [http://rabbikennethbrander.com/is-all-fair-in-love-war-just-unjust-wars-through-the-prism-of-jewish-and-secular-thought-part-2/ part 2]
{{italic title}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jus Ad Bellum}}
[[Category:Just war theory]]
[[Category:Latin legal terminology]]