Warfare generally denotes the intentional and consistent military action among independent nations or states until the defeat of the opponent. It usually results in the armed defeat of one or multiple parties in the field, the destruction of dwelling locations, as well as the significant loss of human life. The first-ever recorded warfare in history was the Elam and Sumer war around 2700 BCE, in which the latter gained the victory (Mark, 2009). The first peace that was ever established ended hostilities between the two nations. The treaty was signed by Rameses II the Great of the Egyptian Empire, and Hattusili III of the Hittite Empire in 1258 BCE (Mark, 2009). Following the treaty, warfare got embedded into human nature over the course of global development, invariably resulting from the tribal nature inherent to communities of people and their caution and mistrust of one another.
In ancient times, warfare was implemented in a different manner than could be seen as acceptable by the current expectations. The populations that were defeated in wars were certain that slavery or summary execution would take place (Mark, 2009). For instance, when Alexander the Great captured the Phoenician city of Tyre in 332 BCE, the majority of citizens were killed while the remaining was purchased by other states as slaves (Mark, 2009). Moreover, in 52 BCE, as Caesar got victory over Vercingetorix and the Gallic tribes in Alesia, the defeated legions were sold into slavery while every man in the victorious army received got gifted slaves. As a result, over forty thousand Gauls got enslaved as a result of their enemy winning.
When it comes to weaponry development, it evolved together with the changes in warfare. In Ancient Egypt, the army was equipped with simple spears and leather shields, while later, around 1570 BCE, the Egyptians defeated the Hyksos army after mastering warfare with horses and chariots, body armor, as well as bronze swords and composite bows. The process for every nation was somewhat similar when it comes to developing rudimentary weapons, usually on the basis of hunting tools, which were further improved as the representatives of different tribes came into contact and learned from one another. As tribes transformed into nations with various interests, conflict and warfare became more widespread as tools to win over territories and capture people using the most advanced methods. Regardless of the external environment, nation leaders have consistently shown their interest in warfare more than any area of nations’ lives.
The current theories on the causes of warfare are divided roughly into two major schools. One of the schools attributes war to specific biological and psychological factors or drives, while another links it to social relations and institutions. Theories centering on the innate drive of humans to engage in violent conflict are focused on ethology, which allows linking the understanding of animal warfare to human behavior (“The causes of war,” 2020). The behavior of monkeys and apes in captivity and the behaviors of young children have shown basic similarities regarding the urges of conflict. Specifically, in both cases, aggressive behaviors have been observed in the areas of rivalry for possession, a stranger’s intrusion, as well as frustration over an activity. Significant cases of conflict lead to anger among the representatives of animal species, especially in terms of territory and food control as well as access to mates, which are usually associated with dominance patterns.
Beyond ethology, psychologists have also been exploring the reasons for people engaging in warfare. Some approaches have emphasized the significance of psychological maladjustments and complexes and of false, stereotyped images held by the decision-makers and leaders of countries. Besides, the innate aggressiveness in people can increase the likelihood of emerging warfare. Psychologists believe in the importance of research and education and that improved social adjustment of individuals would reduce frustration, insecurity, and fear, thus limiting the likelihood of warfare. Therefore, even though there is evidence to support that there are biological underpinnings for humans to engage in war, the social aspect cannot be overlooked.
Along with the instinctual roots of war, there is also a learned aspect to it, with social theorists providing an explanation of war. Within the liberal analysis perspective, scholars have suggested that society is self-regulating and that socioeconomic systems influencing them can run smoothly without interference from the government. However, there is a necessity for governments to establish the lines of defense in their states due to the history of warfare while also maintaining the basic harmony of interests among countries that can minimize war incidence. Nevertheless, liberal sociologists emphasize that wars take place at times of dominance of autocratic political ideologies. In the socialist analysis of conflict, philosophers such as Karl Marx explain the occurrence of war not as a result of governments’ desires or behaviors but rather as an implication of class society structure. Therefore, wars do not take place as random results of state policies but rather because of the clash of social forces. Because of this, both sociological perspectives studying the reasons for wars suggest that the behaviors are learned throughout the development of society and the changing values, interests, and goals. Considering the biological and psychological perspectives, it can be concluded that armed conflict is multi-dimensional and cannot be attributed only to one area.
Just war theory entails a justification of how and why armed conflicts take place, and such justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical explanation of war is concerned with the ethical justification of war and the various forms that it may take. The historical explanation of war, or the “just war tradition,” deals with historical frameworks of agreements and rules that have been established throughout the development of humankind. For example, international agreements set between countries, such as the conventions of Geneva and Hague, establish specific rules aimed at prohibiting or limiting some warfare tools, to which it is possible to refer during transgression prosecution. Nevertheless, ethics are important for assessing the agreements between states for their philosophical relevance as well as evaluating the need for changing any of the existing conventions.
In the twentieth century, the theory of just war underwent a resurgence as a response to the invention of nuclear weaponry and the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam war. Important philosophical tests include Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars (1977), Michael Dockrill’s The Ethics of War (1979), or Richard Norman’s Ethics, Killing, and War (1995). In addition, since the terrorist attacks on the USA on September 11, 2001, academics have dedicated their studies to just war once again. It has become a vital topic in the discussions of political science, international relations, or military history. Theorists have been making a distinction between the accidental killing of civilians as a result of counter-attacks in search of a realistic objective to war and deliberately murdering them within much more ambiguous practices. Many have used the term “unavoidable” for covering different instances of violence even though the numbers of negatively affected civilians do matter. The more deaths of civilians a warfare operation “unavoidably” causes, the greater should be one’s skepticism about its justice.
Modern warfare cannot be placed in the context of just war theory because the philosophical underpinning of the approach has always been debated, and modern research has increased the already available controversies. The theory’s standards are highly varied and adjustable in reality, which makes it hard to apply regularly to the complex discussions and distinctions of war. The problem with applying the just war theory to modern warfare is that every party entering a conflict considers having serious prospects of success and is convinced that it will not produce the outcomes that are graver than the problems that it sought to eliminate (Douthat, 2009). Therefore, in the pursuit of justice, such as the war against terrorism worldwide, parties will inevitably produce injustices, which is why the just war theory fails to hold up in the contemporary war discourse.
References
Douthat, R. (2009). Just war and modern warfare. The Atlantic. Web.
Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2020). Machine gun. Web.
Mark, J. (2009). Warfare. Web.
The causes of war. (2020). Web.
UN. (2018). Maintain international peace and security. Web.
WMDC Commission. (2006). Weapons of Terror: Freeing the world of nuclear, biological and chemical arms. Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.