Thus one, of the criterion for defining just war, is that it's started for to keep the balance between the states.
If the state sees no other means of resolving the situation when its analytics presuppose that the leaders of the opposing state will start a war sooner or later, than the intervention into the territory of that country is justified. It is done for not to let the potential aggressor to develop stronger military power. Thus we can state that one more criterion for saying that the war is just, is that there were no means except for the military intervention to prevent the breach of balance in future.
Preventive wars are led for to preserve peace on the territory of the country which starts them. It sounds paradoxical, but gives us one more criterion for defining a just war, which is that a just war is to be led for re-establishing of peace.
Walzer says, that "Humanitarian intervention is justified when it is a response (with reasonable expectations of success) to acts "that shock the moral conscience of mankind." After analyzing this statement we can deduce two more criterions. ...