What are the eight conditions of a just war?

Question

i know one is that there has to be a just cause, but what are the other seven?

Answer 1

In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum):

recapturing things taken
punishing people who have done wrong
A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said:
"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"

Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[6]
Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Note that these are only the most typical conditions cited by just war theorists; some (such as Brian Orend) omit Comparative Justice, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Answer 2

War is an extension of overseas coverage and is made up our minds by means of statesmen. Not even generals (except the government is army in nature wherein generals also are the statesmen) can claim conflict, or make a decision to visit conflict, or make a decision the results of a conflict. There are stipulations whilst conflict should be declared. There are wars declared that aren't unjustified(invasion of Kuwait by means of Iraq) and there are the ones which can be (conflict to disencumber Kuwait). Iraq wento to conflict towards Kuwait for its possess schedule-territory, entry to shore, and entry to extra oil. Iraq attacked within the pretext that Kuwait used to be stealing oil from Iraq. Whether precise or now not, it used to be now not a justified aggression. It supposed additionally to gobble up Saudi Arabia to manipulate the various global' s oil. This used to be a danger to the steadiness of the arena, so coalition of countries, with the backin gof the UN Security Council, went to conflict to quit Iraqi aggression via the Desert Shield and Desert Storm. This used to be a justified conflict. There are different elements whilst conflict is eclared by means of an aggressor or protector. Japan attacked pearl Harbor earlier than it would formally claim conflict, given that USA stood lengthy how to Japanese enlargement to the Asia-Pacific. Plus it used to be anguish from the oil embargo that used to be prior sanctioned to by means of the US as a kind of protest (or a few say punishment) to Japan's invasion of Manchuria. For the Japanese, it used to be a justified conflict. And they went to conflict hoping they would win the conflict. It used to be a bet of top proportions, which the Japnese misplaced given that in their fallacious estimates. The Japs proposal the US fleet in Hawaii could be cripled, and that the US will capitulate to search a negotiation wherein the Japs intend to get concessions, adding lifting the embargo. Then the US needed to claim conflict towards Japan to defend its curiosity. You see, in each occasions, each had been after their possess pursuits. But by some means, one has a extra justifiable intent than the opposite. If all countries could suppose of advertising their possess pursuits with out getting into the feet of alternative countries, there could be no conflict in any respect....