Discussion 2: Analyzing Just War and Just Peace in HSY315 Course

This assignment presents a detailed analysis of a discussion forum on the topics of just war and just peace. The student's responses address key questions, including how a society's representation of its soldiers reflects its fundamental nature, the meaning and criteria of jus ad bellum, and the likely future of warfare. The responses draw on relevant literature and scholarly sources to provide a comprehensive understanding of these concepts. The analysis covers the societal implications of glorifying the military, the conditions that justify war, and the potential impact of technological advancements on future conflicts. The student's work demonstrates critical engagement with the subject matter, offering valuable insights into the complexities of war and peace.

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

1
DISCUSSION 2: JUST WAR, JUST PEACE
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

2
DISCUSSION 2: JUST WAR, JUST PEACE
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.

3
DISCUSSION 2: JUST WAR, JUST PEACE
ii) Just cause: the waging of war must be supported by the principle of right intention,
which prohibits a state from pursuing national interest alone. Further, it is presumed
that the principle prescribes war in order to resume peace, rather than proliferation of
violence.
iii) Proportionality: This principle stipulates that the employment of violence should be
proportionate to the perceived military objective. However, collateral damage is
justified and accepted in certain cases.
iv) Probability of success: There must be a comprehensive grounds for assuming that the
objectives of war are achievable. This principle stipulates that a state must not resort
to mass violence if it is unsure of achieving a just cause.
v) Last resort: It is presumed that a nation should engage in violence if and only if all
possibilities of non-violent ways of mitigation, such as diplomatic dialogues,
sanctions etc. are exhausted.
Discussion 3
Q) 2. What is the future of war likely to look like?
Answer: According to Hanson (2010), there are two possible scenarios for the decisive,
conventional battle in the contemporary timeframe. One could be between neighboring rival
nation with similar armored and infantry strength, e.g. Pakistan and India, North and South
Korea, People’s Republic of China and Taiwan etc. Another scenario could be an asymmetric
battle between strong military forces of Western nations and poorer, less organized forces of
insurgents, terrorist or piratical forces. However, the modern warfare has undergone a paradigm
shift in contrast to conventional strategies, tactics and technology as involved in conventional

4
DISCUSSION 2: JUST WAR, JUST PEACE
warfare. With the introduction of total war, mechanized warfare, industrial warfare, counter
insurgency, nuclear warfare, and most importantly, the emergence of asymmetric warfare, the
nature of war has already changed to a considerable extent.
At this rate of technological development and changing scenario of global political
landscape, the future of war seems likely to be more technologically advanced. The development
of communication technology has enabled combatant parties to map the battlefield with more
accuracy, as well as aerial photography using drones and radars detecting rival aircrafts within
the sky limits have significantly reduced the possibility of uncertainty and surprise in the battles,
which is nevertheless an essential factor of a decisive war. However, the possibility of future
technologies to overcome these challenges are not unlikely. Just as modern satellite killers are
now able to bring down satellite surveillance, the future development in technology and battle
tactics may usher new means to inflict aggression on rival parties.
Nevertheless, the lethality of warfare has increased over the years, and it is likely to
intensify over time. However, Hanson suggests that the future of war depends on the resource
available to both the belligerents during a head-on confrontation. He further remarks that the
current anthropological notion prevalent in the West maintains that war is unnatural and hence
could be prevented or at least curtailed with proper education (Hanson 2010).
With the rise of globalization involving contemporary global culture of uninterrupted
communication, free trade, global cooperation, it is unlikely that global economic giants and
political power centers would unleash any decisive, full-scale war. However, it is possible to
reduce the cost of war and weaponry with the technological development. Hence, there is always
a possibility of war in the future, and that would be more devastating and lethal than ever before.

5
DISCUSSION 2: JUST WAR, JUST PEACE
References
Hanson, V.D., 2010. The father of us all: War and history, ancient and modern. Bloomsbury
Publishing USA.
Hart, D.M., Chartier, G., Kenyon, R.M. and Long, R.T., 2018. Herbert Spencer,“The Militant
Type of Society”(1882). In Social Class and State Power (pp. 147-152). Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham.
Schulzke, M., 2015. The contingent morality of war: establishing a diachronic model of jus ad
bellum. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(3), pp.264-284.
Stanar, D., 2016. Moral equality of soldiers in war: Necessity of separating jus ad bellum from
jus in bello. Vojno delo, 68(8), pp.33-41.