Two Theories of Just Was

Abstract

As it is traditionally conceived, Just War Theory is suited well for dealing with nation-versus-nation wars and not with nation-versus-non-nation wars. It thus makes sense to create a second Just War Theory to deal with these wars and to formulate principles that impose constraints on them. The article explores the differences and similarities between the two theories. The first theory covers principles that sides in war should equally obey both before they made a decision to enter the war and in the course of the war. They are just cause principle, likelihood of success principle, last resort principle and discrimination principle. The second theory admits some asymmetry in abidance by the principles. In fact, it cancels the legitimate authority principle and the likelihood of success principle for the non-state side (like a non-state rebel, irregular or guerrilla organization) in conflict. And it modifies the just cause principle, allowing the possibility for the nation to make a preventive attack which is not permissible in nation-versus-nation wars. It also weakens the last resort principle for the nation. But the discrimination principle, that makes impossible to attack old folks, children, medical care providers, the clergy, hospitals, schools, homes of civilian population, and the like should be unchangeable for both war parties. No reasons have been thought of as sufficient for cashiering of the discrimination principle. It is emphasized that both Just Wars Theories face different kinds of problems but they are not unresolvable. The article analyses some applications of the theories.