In my opinion….cannot think of just war these days. Okay.t there are wars everywhere and few can be justified short of some macho babble.
Since most of those wars are against some terrorist group or another….but let us look at a comparison just war or terrorism.
In 2009, Jeff McMahan of the Ethics department at Oxford wrote a provocative book, Killing in War, critiquing just war theory as a viable moral construct for limiting war. He also summarized it in a two-part article for The New York Times Opinionator Blog (Part 1 and Part 2). His revisionist perspective that asserts the “principles of jus ad bellum [principles that distinguish just war from unjust war] apply not only to governments but also to individual soldiers, who in general ought not to fight in wars that are unjust.”
Without doubt, recent expressions of international violence, such as targeted assassinations, wartime actions in undeclared war zones, or the use contract mercenaries, force philosophers of just war to pause and consider some, perhaps under-explored, nuances. However, contrary to the professor’s beliefs, this does not require significant modification of the just war tradition.
Source: Killing in War and the Just War Tradition | RealClearDefense
An unusual article, and worth reading. Most ‘just wars’ are justified by having to defend against attack. The Republicans in Spain, WW2 to a greater extent of course, and some others. Wars of conquest and aggression are rarely considered to be ‘just’, for obvious reasons. However, most countries undertaking such invasions normally concoct their own reasons why such actions are ‘necessary’.
Best wishes, Pete.
“Necessary” is just another song and dance….LOL chuq