Just War, Just Peace Discussion

Running head: DISCUSSION 2: JUST WAR, JUST PEACE
Just War, Just Peace
Student’s name
University
Author’s note

DISCUSSION 2: JUST WAR, JUST PEACE
1
Discussion 1
Q)4. What can we learn about a society by the way it represents its soldiers?
Answer. The fundamental nature of a society can be explicitly understood by the way they
represent their army. Arguably, the army represents the military strength of a state. However, in
a closer evaluation, it also signifies aggression and violence. The supposed purpose of
maintaining an armed force is generally the defense of sovereignty and national security of a
country. However, the act of invasion and perpetrating another country, or even inflicting force
on their own citizen is also carried out by the army itself. In this sense, if one society glorifies
their army, it is understandably glorifying force and aggression over social cooperation and
peace.
In this regard, if a society prioritize its army over its citizens and other social
organizations, it could arguably denoted as a militant type society. According to Herbert
Spencer’s Social Darwinism, the primary form of society can be categorized into two types,
namely militant society and industrial society. Although, Spencer suggested that the militant
society hands evolved to become industrial society over time, the primary categorization of
society, based on how they perceive and utilize war in their social context, still follows this
particular two-fold categorization (Hart et al. 2018)
The fundamental difference between militant type and industrial type society
underlies in their approach to cooperation. In a militant society, the cooperation is secured by
force and coercion, whereas in the industrial society, cooperation is spontaneous and voluntary.
In such atmosphere of voluntary cooperation, the relation between the state and the individual
are mutually beneficial, i.e. states exist in order to facilitate social welfare and the benefits of the

DISCUSSION 2: JUST WAR, JUST PEACE
2
individuals. In turn, the individuals fulfill their duty and responsibility towards the state. In such
a context, the individuals enjoy substantial freedom. As well as liberty of mobility and property.
In contrast to this, there are considerable restraint on individual freedom in a militant society.
(Hart et al. 2018)
Therefore, in the light of Spenserian exegesis of society, if the army is given much more
importance than the other social institutions, it is evident that the society is more inclined to a
militant type approach. And in this sense, the society would be more centralized, fixated on
hierarchy and essentially protectionist. It would value patriotism, discipline, courage, obedience
and allegiance to authority. On the other hand, an industrial society will emphasize cooperation
and individualism, allowing greater scope of free trade and economic autonomy to its people.
Discussion 2
Q.1) What is the meaning of jus ad bellum, and what are its criteria?
Answer. Jus ad bellum broadly means ‘right to war’. It is a set of conditions that states should
consider before engaging in a war or resorting to use any form of armed force. The term jus ad
bellum refers to the theory of just war, which is mostly represents the Christian philosophy that
justifies war on moral grounds (Stanar 2016). As set out by the United Nations Charter of 1945,
the prohibitions and the authorizations for the use of armed force comprise the core set of rules
for jus ad bellum. The criteria for just war are following (Schulzke 2015):
i) Public declaration and proper authority: The principle suggests that war is justified if
and only if waged by a state sovereignty. In this regard, only a states can declare war,
and not an individual. And thus just war is differentiated from homicide. Also, the
waging of war must be publicly declared.