War and peace: just war theory (jus ad bellum and jus in bello), pacifism and its forms, the application of ethical theories, and modern issues such as nuclear weapons and terrorism.

What this dot point is asking

You need to explain the ethics of war and peace: just war theory (the conditions for going to war, jus ad bellum, and for conduct in war, jus in bello), pacifism and its forms, the application of ethical theories, and modern issues such as nuclear weapons and terrorism, and then evaluate these positions. This is a central topic of A2 7 Global Ethics, applying the AS theories to one of the hardest questions in global ethics.

Just war theory: jus ad bellum

The theory was developed by Augustine and Aquinas; it seeks a middle path between glorifying war and forbidding it absolutely.

Just war theory: jus in bello

Pacifism and its forms

Applying the ethical theories and modern issues

The AS theories give different verdicts on war.

• Natural Moral Law underpins just war theory: it permits defensive war under the conditions but forbids the direct killing of the innocent (the principle of discrimination), supported by the doctrine of double effect.
• Situation Ethics has no fixed rule and asks what agape requires in the situation, so it could support or oppose a particular war depending on the most loving outcome.
• Utilitarianism weighs the consequences of war and peace for overall happiness, which could justify war to prevent greater suffering or condemn it for its costs.

Modern issues strain the framework: nuclear weapons raise the problem of deterrence (is it right to threaten what it would be wrong to do?) and cannot satisfy discrimination; terrorism and asymmetric warfare blur the lines of legitimate authority and the combatant distinction.

Evaluating the positions

A model evaluation paragraph might run: "Just war theory has the merit of taking both the evil of war and the duty to protect the innocent seriously, offering clear conditions that condemn aggression and limit conduct, which is why it underlies international law. Yet modern warfare strains it: nuclear weapons cannot meet discrimination or proportionality, deterrence seems to require an intention to do what the theory forbids, and terrorism and asymmetric war make legitimate authority and the combatant distinction hard to apply. Pacifism, in turn, bears powerful witness to the value of life and the teaching of Jesus, and non-violent resistance under Gandhi and King achieved real change, but absolute pacifism faces the objection that it may leave the innocent undefended against tyranny. The judgement, therefore, is that just war theory remains the most workable moral framework for war, though genuinely strained by nuclear and asymmetric conflict, while pacifism is most defensible in its nuclear and contingent forms rather than as an absolute rule."

Try this

Q1. What does the principle of discrimination in jus in bello require? [2 marks]

• Cue. That combatants may be targeted but non-combatants (civilians) must not be deliberately attacked.

Q2. Explain the difference between absolute and nuclear pacifism. [6 marks]

• Cue. Absolute pacifism holds all violence is always wrong; nuclear pacifism rejects nuclear weapons specifically because they cannot discriminate or be proportionate, without necessarily rejecting all war.

Q3. "Just war theory cannot cope with modern warfare." Discuss. [20 marks]

• Cue. Weigh the strain that nuclear weapons, terrorism and asymmetric war place on discrimination, proportionality and legitimate authority against the theory's continuing role in international law. Reach a judgement.