Jus ad bellum
|
|
Jus ad bellum (Latin for "Law to War"; see also the Just War Theory) are a set of criteria that are consulted before engaging in war, in order to determine whether entering into war is justifiable.
Jus ad bellum is sometimes considered a part of the laws of war, although the term "laws of war" can also be considered to refer to jus in bello, which concerns whether a war is conducted justly (regardless of whether the initiation of hostilities was just). See GEM Anscombe.
An international agreement limiting the justifiable reasons for a country to declare war against another is concerned with jus ad bellum. In addition to bilateral non-aggression pacts, the twentieth century saw multilateral treaties defining entirely new restrictions against going to war. The three most notable examples are the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war as an instrument of national policy, the London Charter {known also as the Nuremberg Charter) defining "crimes against peace" as one of three major categories of international crime to be prosecuted after World War II, and the United Nations Charter, which binds nations to seek resolution of disputes by peaceful means and requires authorization by the United Nations before a nation may initiate any use of force against another, beyond repulsing an immediate armed attack against its sovereign territory. By contrast, agreements defining limits on acceptable conduct while already engaged in war are considered "rules of war" and are referred to as the jus in bello. Thus the Geneva Conventions are a set of jus in bello. Doctrines concerning the protection of civilians in wartime, or the need for "proportionality" when force is used, are addressed to issues of conduct within a war, but the same doctrines can also shed light on the question of when it is lawful (or unlawful) to go to war in the first place.
These terms are used in discussions of international law and philosophy.
According to Robert Kolb[1]:
- The august solemnity of Latin confers on the terms jus ad bellum and jus in bello the misleading appearance of being centuries old. In fact, these expressions were only coined at the time of the League of Nations and were rarely used in doctrine or practice until after the Second World War, in the late 1940s to be precise.
By this Kolb means that the terms themselves as legal terms, and the subdivision of the doctrine of just war into the branches jus ad bellum and jus in bello, are recent. The concept of just war and the term bellum justum dates to St. Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century.
External links
- ICRC (http://www.icrc.org/) International Committee of the Red Cross
- ICRC: Meaning of these terms (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList104/D34949DF9C488D00C1256CF5004CB47D)
- ICRC: Origin of the terms (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList163/D9DAD4EE8533DAEFC1256B66005AFFEF) (Robert Kolb) [1]
- Crimes of War (http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jus-ad-bellum.html)
- Intractable Conflict (http://www.intractableconflict.org/m/jus_ad_bellum.jsp)
- Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm)
- Bellum Justum (http://www.cpesbcc.net/whitebellum.htm) Argument that some wars are just (Thus a "just war" is a bellum justum)
- Rutgers: Book/Reading List (http://newark.rutgers.edu/~natalieb/justwar.htm)
- Essay hosted at USAF site (http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE04/Bica04.html)
- "Free Essay' on Justification for the Gulf War (http://www.ez-essays.com/free/2566.html) (Lists 6 criteria for 'jus ad bellum')