In Plato’s Republic, the Ring of Gyges explores why individuals act justly. Is it because it is inherently right or simply a convention sustained through punishment and reward? In this thought experiment, Plato questions whether individuals would still choose justice if they could act unjustly without facing any consequences. This ultimately challenges the perception of morality, asking if it is an intrinsic quality or simply a social construct. Plato argues that morality is frequently maintained due to social consequences rather than its intrinsic value. Similarly, just war theory in international law serves as a moral and philosophical compass that guides the justification for war and outlines the ethical limitations on how war should be conducted through two main pillars: jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (justice in war). Plato established a foundational framework for the evaluation of war through the lenses of justice and morality in The Republic. The ethical principles governing contemporary warfare were thus further developed by Christian theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in their writings on natural law. Augustine argued that war could be justified if it aimed to restore peace and punish evil. He introduced the principle of just cause, asserting that wars should be fought for moral reasons rather than for power. Aquinas later formalised several principles of just war theory, building on Augustine’s work and outlining the necessary conditions for a just war. Modern just war theory has developed to address contemporary ethical dilemmas in warfare. With the rise of international institutions and legal frameworks, principles such as proportionality, distinction, and military necessity have become essential in regulating armed conflict. These principles aim to balance the realities of war with moral imperatives, ensuring that the use of force is both justified and constrained. Furthermore, international agreements like the Geneva Conventions strengthen these ethical standards by establishing legal protections for both combatants and civilians. As warfare continues to evolve, just war theory remains a vital framework for assessing the morality of military actions in an increasingly complex global landscape. This article will explore how just war theory has evolved to address modern ethical dilemmas in warfare, especially in the context of contemporary international conflicts. By examining the relationship between philosophical principles and legal frameworks, this analysis will highlight the relevance and adaptability of just war theory in an era marked by technological advancements and changing geopolitical dynamics.
Just War Theory 101
Plato, Augustine and Aquinas’s contributions shaped the just war tradition, modern international law and military ethics, raising questions about the just war tradition in the 21st century. The two pillars of just war theory – jus ad bellum and jus in bello – evaluate the principles for justice before war and in war. To start off, jus ad bellum translates from Latin to justice before war and refers to the conditions under which a state may rightfully engage in warfare. The key principles of jus ad bellum include having a morally justifiable cause for declaring war, ensuring that the benefits of going to war outweigh the anticipated harm, and confirming that all nonviolent options have been thoroughly exhausted before resorting to military action whereas jus in bello meaning justice in war governs how combatants conduct themselves and the methods employed in warfare. The key principles for jus ad bellum include just cause, last resort and intention, while distinction, military necessity and proportionality fall under jus in bello; these principles are embodied in key legal frameworks like the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions that uphold ethical and legal constraints on warfare. The 2003 Iraq War serves as a significant case study for assessing the justification and conduct of the conflict. It sheds light on the complexities involved in applying just war principles to contemporary geopolitical situations. I argue that the Iraq War failed to meet important jus ad bellum criteria, primarily due to questionable justifications and the absence of United Nations (hereinafter: the UN) authorisation. The war’s initiation, lacking clear evidence of an imminent threat and occurring in defiance of international opposition, exemplifies a breach of just war principles, raising concerns about the erosion of legal standards governing the use of force. Additionally, violations of jus in bello, like the mistreatment of detainees at the Baghdad-based Abu Ghraib prison and the use of controversial interrogation methods, further weakened the ethical legitimacy of the conflict within the realm of geopolitics. These issues not only harmed North American credibility but also established a concerning precedent for future military interventions, complicating efforts to uphold international law and standards of ethical warfare; this erosion of credibility and the precedent it established have continued to influence contemporary discussions on military ethics, highlighting the increasing challenges that the just war theory faces.
In the 21st century, just war theory handles significant challenges due to the evolution of warfare tactics and changing global security dynamics. Three key issues emerge: humanitarian interventions, asymmetrical warfare and the role of non-state actors. Regarding humanitarian interventions, states may use political manipulation to justify the use of force for economic gains rather than to prevent human rights abuses. Inconsistent efforts to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure have raised concerns about legitimacy under jus ad bellum (the right to go to war). This leads us to question how asymmetrical warfare between states and non-state actors can minimise collateral damage to innocent civilians. This question compels us to examine the principles of proportionality and distinction within the just war tradition, which are essential components of jus in bello (justice in war). As asymmetrical warfare occurs between state militaries and insurgents, upholding proportionality and distinction becomes challenging, especially when enemy combatants operate within civilian populations. The use of drone strikes and counterterrorism operations further complicates ethical considerations as states attempt to balance military necessity with the need to minimise collateral damage; this change in warfare dynamics questions the basic assumptions of traditional just war theory, which presumes that conflicts occur between sovereign states with defined accountability and engagement rules. However, groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (hereinafter: ISIS), Hezbollah and private military contractors challenge the concept of legitimate authority in jus ad bellum. Non-state actors often disregard international law, making the enforcement of jus in bello nearly impossible.
Ethical Oversight in Modern Warfare
Legal positivism posits that war ethics should be grounded exclusively in codified laws, such as the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. Nevertheless, legal frameworks frequently lag behind emerging forms of warfare, making them inadequate for addressing contemporary conflicts. Conversely, moral absolutism advocates for adherence to universal moral principles irrespective of existing legal structures. This perspective, however, introduces a risk of subjectivity, as various stakeholders will inevitably interpret concepts of justice differently, according to their specific cultural context, as seen in disputes over humanitarian interventions versus state sovereignty. The conflict between adherence to strict legal norms (positivism) and the prioritisation of ethical imperatives (absolutism) emphasises the necessity for a flexible approach that can adapt the principles of the just war tradition to contemporary security challenges. The Iraq War highlights the limitations of strict legal positivism when confronted with ethical imperatives and geopolitical realities. The devletist approach emphasises that, in addition to following legal standards, it is crucial to respect the cultural foundations of governance to maintain legitimate authority, especially in conflict zones. Imposed frameworks can lead to alienation rather than stability because they force the society to behave in ways that are unnatural within their cultural context. Devletism aids us in understanding that unorganic developments and behavioural patterns inevitably produce ineffective, and often detrimental, results. A rigid commitment to legal positivism, when disconnected from the broader goal of fostering genuine knowledge production, undermines the very principles it seeks to uphold. Instead, legal norms should be redirected to strengthen a society’s organic understanding of sovereignty, security, and justice. This approach ensures that law serves as a tool for both stability and ethical governance rather than a barrier to necessary adaptation. By integrating cultural legitimacy and the pursuit of genuine knowledge production, legal frameworks can evolve to address the nuanced realities of modern conflict. Therefore, as warfare evolves, just war theory must also adapt to ensure that it remains relevant in guiding ethical decision-making amidst the complexities of 21st-century security dilemmas.
To ensure that the just war theory remains relevant in guiding ethical decision-making amid the complexities of 21st-century security dilemmas, it must undergo a nuanced reassessment that considers the evolving nature of warfare, the role of non-state actors and the challenges posed by emerging military technologies. First, just war theory should expand its conceptual framework to address asymmetrical warfare, which has become a defining feature of modern conflicts. Traditionally, jus ad bellum assumes that wars are fought between sovereign states with clearly defined military structures and legitimate governing authorities. However, the increasing prevalence of non-state actors, insurgencies and transnational terrorist organisations requires a broader understanding of legitimate authority. A revised just war theory should, therefore, incorporate mechanisms to evaluate the ethical standing of non-state actors engaged in armed conflicts, distinguishing between legitimate resistance movements and unlawful enemy combatants; implementing an international legal framework, however, is challenging because international law currently lacks binding authority, which allows states to interpret and apply legal principles as they choose. This absence of enforceable mechanisms leads to selective applications of justice, undermining global efforts to hold individuals accountable. To address this issue, an international legal framework could be established to assess non-state actors based on their adherence to humanitarian principles. This framework would help distinguish legitimate liberation movements from terrorist organisations, ensuring that these groups are held to the same ethical standards as state actors involved in conflict. The 2007 Nisour Square massacre in the Republic of Iraq, involving the North American private military contractor (hereinafter: PMC) Blackwater, highlighted the complexities associated with applying jus in bello to non-state actors. Blackwater contractors indiscriminately fired on civilians, breaching the principles of distinction and proportionality. Unlike regular military personnel, PMCs operate in a legal grey area, which complicates prosecution and oversight into the matter. This incident blurred the lines between state and non-state actors in warfare, challenging traditional applications of international law. To address this critical issue, it is imperative to establish an international legal framework to regulate PCMs, thereby ensuring their accountability for violations of humanitarian law. Such a framework could involve the extension of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: the ICC) to encompass private military forces operating in conflict zones.
The just war theory must also incorporate principles for regulating humanitarian interventions to prevent their manipulation for political or strategic ends. The Responsibility to Protect (hereinafter: R2P) doctrine under the UN, while offering a moral foundation for intervention, has been applied selectively, raising questions about its legitimacy. This doctrine obligates states to safeguard civilian populations from mass atrocity crimes and aims to ensure that the international community intervenes if a state neglects this responsibility. The 2011 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (hereinafter: NATO) intervention in Libya was initially presented as an initiative to prevent mass atrocities. However, the resulting aftermath, characterised by political instability and persistent violence, raises questions in regard to the alignment of the intervention with the principles of jus ad bellum. To mitigate the potential misuse of humanitarian justifications for military action and the use of force, the international community should establish an independent, multilateral oversight body within the UN tasked with reviewing the necessity, proportionality and legitimacy of humanitarian interventions before the initiation of military operations. This entity would evaluate proposed interventions against clearly defined, legally binding criteria, thus ensuring consistency and minimising the risk of political or economic motives.
Furthermore, the principles of jus in bello should be revised to address the ethical complexities introduced by urban warfare and advanced military strategies, particularly those employed in counterterrorism efforts. The traditional principles of distinction and proportionality require refinement to consider the intricacies of drone warfare, cyber warfare and the integration of artificial intelligence into the military decision-making process. The deployment of robotic warfare, for example, presents significant ethical dilemmas concerning accountability and adherence to international humanitarian law. The main controversies presented with the argument following robotic warfare are: (1) the use of killer robots may lead to higher casualty rates, (2) killer robots have a negative impact on the human condition, (3) a killer robot’s execution of a targeting decision could be morally problematic and (4) killer robots remove human agency from the point of force delivery; the technological shortcomings of robotic warfare thus can violate the principles of jus in bello. It raises the question of whether we can hold individuals accountable when machines make decisions during warfare or if it is morally just to remove human agency at the point of force delivery during active-duty missions. To confront these challenges, a revised just war theory must delineate explicit ethical and legal frameworks for the use of robotic warfare to ensure human oversight in lethal decision-making processes and establish accountability measures for unintentional civilian casualties. The establishment of accountability mechanisms, such as evaluations conducted by independent monitoring bodies following military strikes, would significantly contribute to ensuring adherence to the principles of jus in bello.
Bridging Legal Standards and Moral Accountability
Moreover, the concept of just war theory necessitates a distinct approach to address the interplay between legal positivism and moral absolutism to ensure that legal principles remain adaptable to the changing nature of warfare while upholding ethical standards that go beyond set legal interpretations; this can be achieved by developing a comprehensive hybrid ethical-legal framework. Such a framework must be able to navigate the contradictions between inflexible legal standards and the pressing demands of moral accountability in modern warfare. Legal positivism, which highlights the importance of strict compliance with established laws, often falls short when faced with the ethical dilemmas that arise in contemporary armed conflict scenarios – especially in situations where existing legal codes fall behind the rapidly changing nature of global threats such as cyber warfare or terrorism. On the other hand, the rigid adherence to moral absolutism can lead to fluctuating definitions of justice that are dependent on individual interpretations, which may vary widely across different cultural or ideological landscapes. A robust just war theory must, therefore, aspire to combine the rigidity of legal standards with essential ethical considerations. This integration is important to ensure that military operations are not merely governed by outdated legal structures, which may not adequately reflect the intricacies of modern conflicts but are also informed by current moral values that evolve in response to societal and normative changes. One practical solution to achieving this balance could involve the implementation of ethical review boards within both military institutions and international organisations like the UN and NATO. These boards typically consist of legal experts, ethicists, military officials and representatives from international human rights organisations, operating within a system of checks and balances that includes independent oversight, periodic audits and multi-stakeholder reviews to ensure compliance through binding agreements, transparency measures, and enforcement mechanisms such as sanctions or diplomatic consequences. These boards would evaluate decisions related to warfare, assessing whether actions align with the principles of jus in bello, such as proportionality and distinction. They would also consider evolving ethical norms and concerns, including the use of autonomous weapons and counterterrorism strategies. Establishing such oversight mechanisms would enhance transparency and reinforce the ethical constraints governing warfare, ensuring that military engagements remain justifiable within both legal and moral frameworks.
The evolution of just war theory in response to contemporary security dilemmas raises important questions about its relevance today. To enhance its applicability, we must broaden its scope to include non-state actors, such as insurgent groups, terrorist organisations and private military contractors. This requires developing new criteria to assess their legitimacy based on humanitarian principles and international law. Integrating cultural legitimacy and respecting the governance structures of involved states is also crucial, particularly in culturally rich regions. Military interventions should consider local contexts to avoid exacerbating conflicts and disrupting power dynamics. As discussed above, I argue that a flexible framework for just war theory should focus on genuine knowledge production and foster international cooperation to better understand the root causes of armed conflict. Establishing an internationally binding body to evaluate the actions of both state and non-state actors would ensure consistent standards of justice and accountability. By adopting just war theory, we can maintain its relevance in guiding military and diplomatic decisions amid evolving global security challenges to uphold ethical standards in armed conflict while striving for international peace and security.
