Just War Theory analyzes all aspects of why and how war should be fought and waged. Just war was discussed in Europe as early as Cicero's time, and there have been many other texts in other civilizations with similar discourses such as the Mahabharata in India and an Islamic system of war and peace based on the Quran. Just war theory is an attempt to have realistic expectations about human nature and the inevitability of conflict while maintaining reasonable expectations about human interaction. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe term "just war" was first used by Cicero (106-43), who argued that there is no such thing as a good war unless it is fought in self-defense, whether physical or honorable. By Cicero's time, Rome formed NATO-like alliances with other regions to the point that Rome was constantly at war. Cicero was very critical of Julius Caesar because he believed that his love of power had destroyed the republic. This is the first time we hear that war is only right if declared publicly by a valid source. In this situation that source would be the Senate, as opposed to the soul will of a dictator leader like Julius Caesar. Cicero also states that war is acceptable only after monetary reparations have been requested from the offending state. These two guidelines set the precedent for subsequent theories.St. Augustine (354-430 AD) lived in a time when Rome was on the verge of falling and the world that had been founded by Rome was rapidly being conquered. This led Augustine to reflect on how the pagan Roman way of waging war was not right and how to take part in warfare without compromising the moral integrity of an individual or state. His theory was that war could be morally justified if it was intended to create peace for both the offensive and defensive sides. His contemplation led to the development of the terms “Jus Ad Bellum” and “Jus in Bello”. These Latin terms refer to justified reasons for going to war and right ways to behave in war. Augustine initiated the discussion for incorporating a Christian approach into warfare. He argued that there were ethical reasons to engage in combat and that there were times when it was ethical for Christians to be soldiers as long as they behaved in a way intended to lead to a positive outcome. Centuries later, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) expanded Augustine's theories by providing criteria for Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. In a Europe surrounded by attacks from the Middle East and shaken by the Crusades of the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" provided reasoning on several issues concerning God and an individual's relationship through action with God, including very distinct criteria for how to morally engage in war. While several philosophers continued the tradition of religious ethical speculation, it was only with the book “Laws of War and Peace” by the philosopher Hugo Grotius (1583-1645 AD) during the Thirty Years' War, that these theories moved from theoretical contexts into legal field. Jus Ad Bellum, as mentioned, is the right to wage war. To justly go to war the decision must be made by a sound legal system with the ability to discuss and weigh the pros and cons of war. In the framework provided by Thomas Aquinas there are specific criteria that must be met to define a just war. There must be a wrong committed against the state for which war is an adequate response, and it is important not to be the catalyst in starting a waruntil another has wronged you. The purpose of war must be only to right the wrong committed against the State and nothing more. There must be a significant probability that you will win the war and therefore not let your soldiers be killed without any chance of success. Finally, war must be the absolute last resort after every other attempt to right the wrong has been thwarted. Enemy invasion, theft of land and resources, and disruption of trade are all traditional reasons that would deem war a necessary solution. Today we have pre-emptive and preventative war laws that were not discussed until more recent history. Preventive war attacks first when it is clear that you will soon be attacked. Preemptive war means attacking to prevent your opponent from gaining more power and thus threatening your status. An example of an act of preemptive war would be the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II. Both of these overtures of war are technically illegal, although there have rarely been any significant consequences for these actions. Making these tactics illegal is an attempt to prevent wars from starting in the first place, in the hopes of preventing wars from happening at all. Jus in Bello describes the right conduct in war. Once at war the use of force must be proportional to the amount necessary to right the wrong committed. That is, there must not be excessive use of unnecessary force. The military must consciously discriminate between combatants and non-combatants and civilians must be left alone. Finally, the government is not responsible for the unintended negative consequences of war if the damage was unintentional, the intention was positive, and if the positive outcomes of the war outweigh the negative ones. Before modern weapons, the concept of proportionality was about not doing more to the opposing army than it did to you or what is justified based on the offense. Starting in World War I we begin to see biochemical warfare and the ability to carpet bomb entire regions. With this technological advancement, more specific rules were needed to prevent unwarranted harm resulting from the indiscriminate use of these weapons. Biochemical warfare, carpet bombing, intimidation of civilians through the use of rape and theft have all been declared international war crimes punishable by the war tribunal. However, as in the case of the implementation of preventive/preventive war, it is rare for all crimes to be punished, if only for the fact that within a war there are so many of them that it is difficult to keep track of them and collect all the details. For example, the UN released this statement regarding the bombing of a Syrian university during the war: “The Secretary-General strongly condemns yesterday's terrible attack on the University of Aleppo, in which dozens of people were killed and injured.” . Strongly condemning an action is certainly not the same as punishing it, but a world governing body with the force to enforce international law could be a solution with more sinister consequences. Although Grotius is known for the earliest form of laws of conduct, it was not until the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 in which multiple nations agreed on a code of conduct in matters of warfare with a specific focus on armaments and biochemical warfare . While the Hague Conventions discussed specific aspects of weapons, it was not until the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War that proper and lawful conduct during times of war was discussed in any depth. Today we have international laws that dictate exactly what constitutes a war crime and whether or not to support a state.