Understanding the Just War Theory

Around two months ago I attended a presentation by the head of the Eastern Connecticut State University Political Science department, Professor Martin Mendoza-Botelho, on the concept of the Just War theory. The event implored students to come to personal conclusions on the topic, based on the wide variety of information given, and by questions being asked by Professor Mendoza-Botelho. Also, the free-form nature of the event allowed for students of the audience and the presenter to engage in an open discussion. The presentation challenged students' notions of global politics, war, and the 2024 United States presidential election.

The event itself was coordinated by the Department of Political Science, Philosophy and Geography. Professor Mendoza-Botelho’s information was bountiful and succinct. At the time, the election was nearing an end, so the presentation focused on each candidate's likelihood of how they would react if the United States went into a war. Not only did the presentation focus on the theory itself, but its history and contemporary examples such as Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The start of the event was focused on the foundations of the Just War theory. St. Thomas Aquinas refined St. Augustine’s notions of the theory that Christians could do no wrong when engaging in war “to prevent grave wrongs.” Although St. Augustine’s ideas shaped Western culture, the refined approach applies Aristotelian principles to strengthen its philosophical aspect, outlined the conditions for which war is just, and made peace the common objective when engaging in conflict, which shaped the ethics of modern warfare exchanges. The presentation then focused on the justification of war, looking at aspects such as just cause, the military necessity when conducting war, and conduct afterward. The next segment of the presentation was on the implications of the Just War theory in the modern day.

This was done by going over the assumptions and limitations of the theory, the notion of self-defense, and problematic scenarios. Some of the assumptions are that countries in conflict have shared moral identities and universal values. Moreover, how politicians differentiate between what is just and unjust. As Professor Mendoza-Botelho explains, there are constraints on these ideas. The limitations are that cultural differences may detest social norms other than those who they are going to war with, furthermore their social dynamics are diverse and therefore have different notions according to the country. Finally, when war is in practice, the resolutions are often complex and revolve around ambiguous scenarios. On self-defense, the reasons are that self-defense seems more moral than being the one that starts the aggression, unintended consequences affect both parties, and it is a natural right to defend oneself.

The occasion was wrapped up by a discussion with Professor Mendoza-Botelho and the audience. The questions asked encompassed what we thought of how President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris would react if put in the position of waging a war. This was done by an overview of their tendencies toward using a last resort, having the right intentions, and their chance at being successful. While the points made were interesting, what was even more so was the audience's reaction. Many students spoke out about their concerns with how each candidate would handle following the Just War theory. It was interesting to hear all sides of the political spectrum speak up and I was glad that students had an outlet to speak their minds in an open forum discussion.

The truth is, I do not see war as a just cause. While the presentation made me reflect on my preconceived notion of war, it seems to be an outdated concept as a means to solve conflict.

Much of what is seen in the news today makes me question what the end goal of war is; how land or resources are more sought after than the livelihoods of people everywhere. The Just War theory is a mechanism to explain justifications of conflict between nations that has horrific effects. While it is an unfortunate truth of reality that war does occur, as there are multiple currently happening at the time of me writing this, it seems to be an unlucky outcome when tension grows around the globe. For World War II, it was imperative for the axis powers to be stopped. War has an unavoidable role in global politics. However the role that war plays is unforgiving and has ambiguous explanations as for why there needs to be reasoning behind it.