The Flawed Instrument- Why War Cannot Be Just

The relationship between war and justice is a complex and debated topic. While some argue that war can be a means to achieve justice in certain situations, others maintain that the inherent destructiveness of war makes it an unsuitable instrument for achieving just outcomes. In this regard, I believe that war is not a justification for using war. This position is in line with my viewpoint, which highlights that there are more drawbacks and moral dilemmas when employing military combat to seek justice than advantages. Furthermore, it has roots in a number of intellectual and moral traditions.

The first and what I believe to be the most important reason for my stance is the humanitarian concerns that come with war. The most profound impact of war is the loss of human lives, including both military personnel and civilians. It is possible that billions of innocent people, including women, children, and the elderly, have died as a result of war throughout human history. This loss is often the result of direct combat, but it can also be caused by displacement, disease, malnutrition, and inadequate access to healthcare. Mo Tzu also argued that the slaughter of human beings during war goes against the nature of humanity (Tzu, Mo 504). Other humanitarian concerns include injuries and disabilities, displacement and refugees, destruction of infrastructure, psychological trauma, and disruption of fundamental systems that are needed by the public, including education and food security.

The second reason for my stance is the unintended consequences of war, which, according to the history of wars, are common occurrences. One such occurrence is prolonged instability, which hinders the establishment of conditions necessary for a just and peaceful society. Some of the factors that bring about this instability include the large-scale displacement of populations who often face difficulties in finding secure housing, employment, and access to basic services, contributing to social and economic instability. Secondly, wars disrupt economic activities, leading to the collapse of industries, loss of livelihoods, and a decline in economic productivity. The instability in the economy can persist long after the cessation of hostilities, making it challenging for communities to recover. Thirdly, wars often lead to the proliferation of armed groups, including rebel factions and militias. To quote one of the essays for this assignment, “Many horrors and injustices can traffic under the cover of “peace.” (Elshtain 2). The continued presence of such groups can perpetuate insecurity, hinder reconstruction efforts, and make it difficult for a central government to exert control. Lastly, war often results in political instability, leading to the fragmentation of political institutions and the emergence of competing power structures. This fragmentation can hinder the establishment of effective governance and impede efforts to achieve political stability.

The third reason for my standpoint is that solving conflicts through legal and diplomatic channels can lead to more just and sustainable outcomes. The rule of law emphasizes the importance of governing actions based on established legal principles. Besides, resorting to war without clear legal justification can undermine the international legal order. Notably, international law provides a framework for resolving disputes peacefully. Agreements such as the United Nations Charter prohibit the use of force except in self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council.

Subsequently, there are arguments in support of war as an instrument for peace in the case of self-defense. The concept of self-defense is a widely recognized and accepted justification for the use of military force in international law. The right to self-defense is inherent in customary international law and is explicitly mentioned in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The UN Charter says that in the event of an armed attack on them, member states have a fundamental right to individual or collective self-defense up until the Security Council takes action to preserve global peace and security. This is completely acceptable, except if innocent lives are lost in the self-defense attack, then all this goes against the basic meaning of justice. Fairness, equity, and the preservation of moral and legal norms are all parts of the broad and intricate idea of justice. It is a fundamental value that guides human interactions at the individual and societal levels. As such, the consequences of an attack should be examined under this meaning.

In conclusion, war cannot be a tool of justice because history has shown that it leaves more damage than the intended justice. Notably, the assessment of whether war can bring justice should depend on the specific context, the justifications for military action, and the perspectives of individuals and communities involved. However, in many cases, there is a preference for seeking alternative, non-violent means to address conflicts and promote justice.

Work Cited

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. “What is a Just War?” Reading the World: Ideas that Matter, edited by Michael Austin, W.W. Norton & Co., 2010, pp. 296 – 298.

Tzu, Mo. “Against Offensive Warfare” Reading the World: Ideas that Matter. 3rd ed, edited by Michael Austin, W.W. Norton & Co., 2010, pp. 504-507.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question

Carefully read the essays “Against Offensive Warfare” and “What is a Just War.” Using both sources, write an essay where you agree or disagree that war can be used as an instrument of justice.