The respect for individual moral rights dominating

the respect for individual moral rights, dominating both moral and legal frameworks concerning
war. Walzer says in jus in bello,
5
the part that concerns the conduct of war ‘requires us to make
judgements about… the observation or violation of the customary and positive rules of
engagement’ (2000:21). 6 This implies that just war principles governing the conduct of war are
‘customary and positive in nature’ (Walzer 2000:21), rather than expressing nonconventional
morality. Though Walzer later claims that the guidelines to ‘’fighting well’ are recognitions of men
and women who have moral standing independent of an resistant to the exigencies of war’
(2000:135). Walzer describes these principles as ‘the set of articulated norms, customs, professional
codes, legal precepts, religious and philosophical principles, and reciprocal arrangements that shape
our judgements of military conduct ‘ (2000: 40,45). I argue with the principles that Walzer defends
in developing just war theory, as they are essentially requirements of respect for individual rights in
regard to war, with constraints placed on initiation and conduct.
The perceived distance between actions, consequences and the inevitable dehumanisation of others
produces moral inconsistencies and discrepancies. The idea of war as a realm questioning if people
can be judged in the midst of war is what incites conversation to dictate the use of warfare and
morality. Jus ad Bellum is concerned with matters of necessary intention in order for a decision to
4
Michael Walzer. Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books), 1977.
5
Jeff McMahon. The Ethics of Killing in War, Ethics, The University of Chicago, 2006, 693
6
Walzer, Michael. Just ad Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books), 2000

go to war in order to be morally good or permissible. 7 However; several conditions have to be met
in order to be satisfiable or to be morally justifiable to engage in war. These conditions include, just
cause, right intention, legitimate authority, and proportionality and probability of success. Pacifists
rejects the concept of war on principle, 8 highlighting the importance of resolution theorising that
war cannot be justified as the moral nature of killing citizens is inhumane and justifiably wrong,
placing focus on maintaining peace rather than justifying war in the sphere of ethics. The use of
force is always wrong, even in defence, therefore pacifism rejects both the just war theory and
realism. Absolutism pacifism claims it is never right to kill another human being, no matter what
the consequences of not doing so might be, even loss of life. This may be a religious belief or even
a secular one however; pacifism views violence as extremely unacceptable.
But why do states have rights? A theory of legitimate governance is needed to ground just war
theory and to discern morality. States need their rights to protect their people and to ensure moral
legitimacy. John Locke declared that governments are instituted among people to realise the basic
rights of those people. If governments do so, they are legitimate; if not, they have neither right nor