Well, after reading all this I guess it's my turn to post an historical prospective of the "Just War", morality and whatever ...
Cicero [335 BC], the Roman orator, jurist, and philosopher was one of the first to deal with the questions of justifiable war. Cicero believed that the use of force was justifiable only when the war was declared by an appropriate and legitimate governmental authority acting within specific limits. For Cicero, the ability to wage war rested solely with the state, and could be lawfully waged only "after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted or warning has been given and a formal declaration made." Additionally, Cicero also proposed the existence of a common norm for human behavior which transcended the laws of individual nations and governed their relations with each other. Cicero's belief in this universal norm was based on his view that there was a “humani generis societas”, a "society of mankind rather than of states. This view of a universal standard of behavior for nation-states which exists outside of promulgated law would have a profound impact on later just war theorists, particularly on Hugo Grotius.
1 – ability rested with the state and the state along
2 – only after formal for satisfaction and then a formal declaration
St. Augustine [4th & 5th Century AD] agonized over how to reconcile Christianity's high ethical ideals with the world realities which were bringing about the fall of Rome keeping in mind that early Christian approaches to warfare were pacifistic in nature, due to a focus in the early Church to the notion that Christians were distinct from the rest of society. However, with the growing Christianization of the Roman Empire, and the increasing political and social influence of the Christian Church, Christian theologians during the fourth and fifth centuries began to develop justifications for the use of force which would eventually take shape over time as just war theory.
As the first major Christian theologian to address himself to the task of determining the circumstances under which war is legitimate, Augustine held that "[t]he natural order, which is suited to the peace of moral things, requires that the authority and deliberation for undertaking war be under the control of a leader." For Augustine, war is a permissible part of the life of a nation, and the power of prosecuting a war was part of the natural powers of a monarch, ordained to uphold peace. War, far from being something which Christians should shun, is part of the life of a nation, ordained by natural law, a law which according to the New Testament is ordained by God.
Augustine's conception of the “Just War” did not create a carte blanche for bloodshed. In forming his ideas on war, St. Augustine carefully points out the causes for which war may be fought, and the procedures that must be satisfied in order for a war to be just. "[F]or it makes a great difference, by which causes and under which authorities men undertake the wars that must be waged." For Augustine, for a war to be just, it must be fought for the right reasons, and it must be waged under rightful authority.
Augustine held that the only reason which justified war was the desire for peace. "Peace is not sought in order to provide war, but war is waged in order to attain peace." Augustine denounces other motives for war, such as "[t]he desire for harming, the cruelty of revenge, the restless and implacable mind, the savageness of revolting, the lust for dominating, and similar things," and refers to them as things which are "justly blamed in wars." In fighting a war, the goal must be to do that which is necessary to obtain peace; "[l]et necessity slay the warring foe, not your will." Augustine also includes under the subject of necessity the just treatment of prisoners and conquered peoples, making it clear that mercy should be shown to the vanquished, particularly if they are no longer a threat to peace.
Besides right intention, St. Augustine also held that it was necessary for a war to be waged under lawful authority. The purpose of the war-making powers of the state is to ensure peace, which in turn helps to foster the common-good of those in society. Augustine recognized that it was necessary for the authority and decision to undertake war to be made by a recognized leader. In addition, the soldiers who serve under the leader must serve the peace and common-good of society. Warfare which is declared by unlawful authority therefore fails to meet this criteria, as does warfare which is not directed toward peace and the common good.
1 – Lawful Authority.
2 – Moral imperative. Were we attacked vs War of Aggression.
3 – Reasonable expectation of success.
4 – All reasonable other measures must be exhausted.
5 – Proportional response. Non-combatants and mercy.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas based himself upon St. Augustine's view of war, elaborating on these teachings. In refining his theory regarding the justness of a war, Aquinas focused on defining the right to make war and the importance of the intent which stands behind the decision to go to war. His attempt was to formulate simple rules which would give guidance on these issues, Aquinas argued that a war is justified when three basic, necessary conditions were met:
1 - the war was prosecuted by a lawful authority with the power to wage war
2 - the war was undertaken with just cause
3 - the war was undertaken with the right intention, that is, "to achieve some good or to avoid some evil."
Grotius [16th Century AD] A Dutch Protestant who some call the father of international law. Grotius lived through the aftermath of the Thirty-Years War in Europe and wrote extensively on the right of nations to use force in self-defense in his book Jure Belli ac Pacis ("On the Rights of War and Peace"), which was published in 1625. It was largely Grotius who secularized just war theory, making the theory more acceptable for the age of the Enlightenment. For Grotius, a war is just if three basic criteria were met:
1 - the danger faced by the nation is immediate.
2 - the force used is necessary to adequately defend the nation's interests.
3 - the use of force is proportionate to the threatened danger.
Grotius agreed with Cicero's belief of the need for a declaration of war, and also argued that the “purpose of just war theory” is to provide “succor and protection for the sick and wounded in war, combatants and civilians alike.” A result of this view is the notion that just war theory exists externally of any recognized legal system, that it is a part of the “law of nations” which is followed by all civilized nations. For Grotius, it is not necessary to prove just war theory by consulting with any of the established laws of the nations of Europe, or their customs. Instead, those laws are known through the universal medium of the natural law, a law which transcends nations and their own particular legal codes, a law which is binding on all human societies in their interactions with each other.
Daniel Webster [1842] while serving as the U.S. Secretary of State, acknowledged the legitimacy of the customary norms employed by Grotius to define the just war. This recognition occurred as a result of attempts to resolve the so-called "Caroline Incident."
The Caroline Incident occurred while the British were attempting to prevent supplies from reaching Canadian rebels. During these efforts to restrict shipping to the rebels, the British burned the U.S. ship Caroline and killed several U.S. citizens. When the United States protested, the British government responded that its actions were justified as a matter of self-defense. Webster responded by stating that the only way for the British claim to self-defense to stand was if it met the traditional elements of just self-defense. Webster outlined those elements which are based mostly on the writings of Grotius:
1 - consisting of necessity of self-defense
2 - the reasonable and not excessive use of force.
