Just War Theory, Positive and Negative Peace - Essay Example

Just War Theory Just war theory tries to explain the reason for a war being fought. This doctrine also tries to deal with the manner wars are fought. The reasons for a war can be judged to be either theoretical or historical based on the case. The two forms of judgment presents different views for a war to be fought as theoretical judgment tries to explain the ethical aspect of a war and things that could have happened if a war was not fought whereas the historical judgments presents the different historical reasons which made people enter into war (Moseley, 2009). The Just War Theory has laid down certain principles which should be followed and presents certain rules regarding it. The theory states that war should be used as a last resort and should be engaged into only when all the other means which are forms of non violence have been exhausted and there is no other way except engaging in war (Falk, 2001). The theory also stresses the fact that the legitimate authority who has the power can take a decision of entering into war and bodies other then them has no legitimate authority to enter into war (Wills, 2004). The theory also stresses the fact that war should be entered if it is correct and will ensure justice and reasons other than it should not make people enter into war. While looking into it; it should be should be ascertained that entering into it will ensure success though fatalities are bound to come in the process (Wills, 2004). This should be viewed as a long term objective as entering into a war will ensure peace and harmony in the long run. The theory also substantiates the fact that weapons and violence should be an used to an extent that will ensure victory and using extra power just to see that the other parties suffer large casualties should be avoided at all cause. Along with this it should be ensured that war is not engaged with civilians and steps and process should be designed to ensure that the casualties to the civilians are minimized (Wills, 2004) The Just War Theory thereby stresses on the different aspect of war and engaging war according to the principles laid down in the doctrine will ensure that war is used as a last resort and result in minimum fatalities. The Theory of Deterrence Detterence theory is a theory which has been advocated and used by the US during the Cold War. This theory basically tries to explain the condition under which a State can deter another State from conducting operations against it if it goes against the interest of the State (Powell, 1990). This theory basically looks towards using the armed forces when another state acts against the interest of a state whereas there are other methods even through which status quo can be achieved. This theory makes economies use armed forces to achieve their political interest and having a zero sum game during this theory helped economies to develop relations with each other so that the interest of other parties are not hurt (Keel, 2000). The problem of this theory multiplies when Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons and using it against another state would result in mass scale destruction. This theory states that a nation can act when the other State goes against the national interest but using nuclear weapons irrespective of the nation that uses it would result in mass scale fatalities and destruction to civilians (Powell, 1990). This made economies look into the seriousness of the mater and deter from using nuclear weapons to the maximum extent possible. Economies need to look for alternatives and solve the problem which goes against national interest. Even if a situation of war arises nations need to deter from the use of nuclear weapons as the effect of those could be huge and will result in wide scale destruction. Despite an agreement to not use weapons the theory has certain drawback as it is hardly practised and is a theory. To ensure effective use of this theory it is important that the communication process is clear and it doesn’t provide a false confidence that the other state will act in the interest of all and not use nuclear weapons (Krieger, 2011). The theory of deterrence thus presents the various facts which will deter organizations from using weapons especially nuclear weapons as the impact of those will be huge and will result in wide scale destruction for all. Non-Violence as a Form of Violence Non Violence is considered as a form of violence because different form of protest, struggle, helps the deprived to get their rights against different class and government who try to suppress the people. This is achieved without engaging into war of any form thereby resulting in minimum violence and fatalities but still achieving the objective with which it is done (Kurlansky, 2007). Non Violence is also considered as a form of violence because this mechanism uses strategy which helps the social class to achieve the objectives without engaging into war. There have been many instances which has shows that non violence acts as a form of violence and helps the masses to achieve objectives which were difficult to pursue through armed ways. One such example in this direction is the Non Co-operation Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in 1930 in India. This movement ensured that India was freed from the clutches of the British and ensured that the masses were able to receive the social justice which they were entitled to (Kurlansky, 2007) There is no single definition which connotes to non violence. Even all religion propagates the use of non violence to establish peace and harmony as it is viewed by society as a way of cultural and intellectual establishment which helps to achieve the objectives which are difficult otherwise (Kurlansky, 2007). People and researches advocate this method of ensuring peace nut still at times resort to ways which are violent and result in fatalities. A great advantage of non violence is that it results in limited casualties in comparison to a scenario where a country engages into war. Parallel has been drawn between non violence as a form of violence because in this form of violence no weapons are used but the suppressed masses don’t agree to the rules and term laid down by the authority. The follow their own rules and the governing body is ignored. The suppressed parties’ takes pain upon them and ensure that the movement results result in achieving the objectives. Non Violence thus ensures that the objectives are achieve without resorting to violence but has a parallelism with violence as it results in non cooperation and following the own objectives and rules so that the interest in not suppressed. Positive and Negative Peace Peace as a concept arises between two parties and is a situation where both the parties whether inside a state, country, neighborhood or civilization try to get the better out of other but rather chooses to stay calm and quite. This gives birth to a situation which is termed as positive and negative peace. Positive peace is thus a situation where harmony prevails in the country and both the parties look towards the well being of each other. It is a situation where no form of violence exists and both the parties look towards a mutual understanding (Galtung, 2003). Negative peace on the other hand connotes to a situation where there is an absence of violence. This situation arises due to different ceasefire that has been entered into. This situation result in compromising on certain things so that a mutual understanding can be developed which looks after the well being of most (Galtung, 2003). This brings forward a situation where positive peace results in equity in the society. This is a situation which most individual look to attain through different measures but in reality it is a difficult proposition because some sort of violence does exist and it result in a creation of negative peace which has been entered into after entering into a mutual understanding. This theory on peace and violence has undergone widespread changes and looks to include different causes of violence and peace. This has enabled to ensure that different forms of violence like structural violence are included and it ensures that this theory built around things which are actually present in the world scenario. The theory of peace and violence has thereby grown and looks to include both direct and indirect violence in different forms (Galtung, 2003). This thereby includes assault, riot and terrorism as direct violence which results in the creation of negative peace as a mutual understanding has to be entered into by a ceasefire. Indirect form of violence include hunger, discrimination which results in positive peace as this form of violence looks towards absence of violence of all form (Galtung, 2003). Thus, the theory of peace and violence looks to work on different areas and based on those helps to identify factors which results in positive and negative violence which can benefit the society in the long run. References Falk, R. 2001. Defining a Just War. The Nation, 29th October, 2001 Galtung, J. 2003. Positive & Negative Peace. Retrieved on July 26, 2011 from http://www.activeforpeace.org/no/fred/Positive_Negative_Peace.pdf Krieger, D. 2011. Ten Serious Flaws in the Nuclear Deterrence Theory. Retrieved on July 26, 2011 from http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?article_id=206 Keel, R. 2000. Rational Choice & Deterrance Theory. Sociology of Deviant Behavior. Retrieved on July 26, 2011 from http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html Kurlansky, M. 2007. Give Non-violence a Chance. Retrieved on July 26, 2011 from http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/42/give_non_violence_a_chance/ Moseley, A. 2009. Just War Theory. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on July 26, 2011 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/ Powell, R. 1990. Nuclear Deterrence Theory: The Search for Credibility. Cambridge University Press. Volume 8, pp. 230 Wills, G. 2004. What is a just war? New York Review of Books. Volume 51, Number 18, pp. 208, Yale University Press Read More

 

Read More