Are Any of the Current Wars “Just Wars”?
Philip Kotler
Many of us feel that no war is justified. Murdering people, destroying
their habitat, their businesses, their lives, has no justification.
Others say that some wars are justified. Vice-President J. D. Vance
asserted that the U.S attack on Iran was done to prevent Iran from developing nuclear bombs and then threatening the U.S.
Today the world is experiencing many major and minor wars.
Currently there are eight major wars. Major wars involve 10,000 or more combat-related deaths in current or previous years.
1. Arab-Israeli/Iran-Israel proxy war
2. Myanmar civil war
3. Sudanese civil war
4. Congolese conflicts
5. Somali civil war
6. Islamist insurgencis in the Maghreb/Sahel
7. Mexican drug war
8. Russo-Ukrainian
In addition, there are 12 conflicts in minor wars (1,000–9,999 combat-related deaths in current or previous year). We won’t comment on them here.
The Theory of a Just War
Just war theory is a hybrid of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy and early Christian theology.
The concept didn’t start with the Catholic Church; it began as a civic and philosophical framework in the ancient world.
Aristotle (Politics) posited that war should only be waged as a last resort, primarily to avoid being enslaved and to restore peace. Plato also explored rules of engagement. Later, the Roman orator Cicero formalized the idea of just war, arguing that war must be openly declared and fought for survival or to protect the state.
The Catholic Church got involved in the theory of a just war in the 5th century. St. Augustine integrated Cicero’s and Aristotle’s ideas with Christian theology. He argued that while individual violence is wrong, governments have a moral duty to use force as a “lesser evil” to punish evildoers, avenge wrongs, and protect peace. St. Thomas Aquinas systematized Augustine’s thoughts into concrete criteria for a just war in his Summa Theologiae.
The concept of attacking another party to stop a perceived future threat is a highly contentious issue in traditional just war theory. We can distinguish between a preemptive war and a preventive war.
A preemptive war involves attacking an enemy when an attack is imminent and the enemy is already mobilizing. The U.N. Charter recognizes preemptive strikes as a legitimate form of self-defense. Once the opponent has fired the first shot or crossed the border, you do not have to wait to take a defensive strike.
A preventive war is waged to eliminate a potential future threat when an attack is not imminent, but an adversary is gaining power or the capability to attack later. Traditional just war theory and international law generally prohibit preventive wars. In preventive scenarios, the threat is usually speculative, and the immediate harms caused by the war outweigh unconfirmed future dangers.
What Are The Criteria For A “Just War”?
The core tests are:
1. Just cause — usually defense against aggression, protection of the innocent, or stopping grave injustice.
2. Legitimate authority — declared or authorized by a lawful public authority.
3. Right intention — the real aim must be peace and justice, not revenge, conquest, politics, oil, prestige, or domination.
4. Last resort — serious nonviolent alternatives must have been tried or shown clearly futile.
5. Reasonable chance of success — war should not be launched if it is likely to worsen the evil.
6. Proportionality before war — expected good must outweigh expected destruction.
7. Discrimination during war — civilians must not be intentionally targeted.
8. Proportionality during war — even legitimate military targets cannot be attacked with excessive civilian harm.
Modern international law overlaps with this but is narrower. Under the UN Charter, force is generally lawful only in self-defense after an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization.
The U.S. Attack on Iran
Let’s apply these criteria to the U.S. attack on Iran. Did the U.S. use every last resort? Was the scale of the attack proportionate? Did the U.S. have lawful authority from another source? Was civilian harm minimized? Was the threat of an Iranian attack immediate? Generally speaking, a preventive strike does not satisfy the strict just-war test unless the threat is immediate, grave, and unavoidable.
Russia’s Assault on Ukraine
Let’s examine the Russo Ukrainian war. Was Russia’s attack on Ukraine a “just war?” Vladimir Putin has offered several justifications.
1. Preventing Ukraine from Joining NATO and therefore threatening Russia’s security.
2. Protecting Russian-Speaking People in Donbas who might suffer persecution from Ukraine.
3. “Demilitarization” and “Denazification” to prevemt Ukrainian extremists from posing a threat to Russia.
4. Historical Claims That Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and that Ukraine is an artificial state.
5. Self-Defense Against the West which attempts to weaken or dismantle Russia.
These justifications are largely rejected by most governments, international legal scholars, and international organizations. Ukraine is seen as a sovereign state with internationally recognized borders. Russia violated international law by invading and occupying Ukrainian territory. The arguments concerning genocide, self-defense, and denazification have generally been found unsupported by independent investigations.
Russia wants to prevent a democratic, Western-oriented neighboring state from succeeding. Putin wants to reestablish Russia as a major International power.
Conclusion
I believe that most wars are “unjust.” The aggressing party failed to take enough time to resolve the issues. The aggressive party underestimated the resistance and the length of time and cost that would ensue. The aggressive party was not authorized by a lawful international party such as The United Nation. The aim was revenge or conquest and domination, not justice or peace. The war would involve killing too many civilians including mothers and children.
Given that most wars are unjust, the world has to reduce military weapons and build stronger measures to prevent unjust wars from taking place.
