Just War Theory is a long standing tradition in the field of war ethics that assesses the morality of all political and military actions leading up to and during periods of conflict. Historically, the moral justifications for going to war and those relating to the battlefield have been considered as separate, since political and military decisions are confined to their own arenas. However, this orthodox model has been challenged by revisionists, arguing that, in order for a combatant to fight justly, the war in which they fight must first be just. This paper examines the orthodox and revisionist models in order to determine the necessity of jus ad bellum (justice for war) as a prerequisite for satisfying the criteria of jus in bello (justice in war). The analysis focuses on arguments in support of, and against, each model to provide a solution to a moral dilemma of fighting justly in an unjust war. Using this analysis, the paper will conclude that neither model is adequate to achieve this for different reasons and that a solution could be found in a new model. Keywords: Just War Theory, Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Walzer, McMahan, Orthodox, Revisionist.
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright © 2014 University of Central Lancashire