The principles of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, which are also referred to as the laws of just war, have been widely discussed and debated by scholars and policymakers for decades. These principles aim at regulating the conduct of war and ensuring that conflicts are conducted in a just and ethical manner. While these principles have been widely accepted and applied by the international community, they also carry several limitations, including subjectivity and interpretation, enforcement and accountability challenges, complexity and ambiguity in application, as well as susceptibility to power dynamics and selective application. This paper with the aim of critiquing the two principles, adopts analytic and hermeneutic philosophical methods. It questions the possibility for strict adherence to these principles for a just war. It argues that there are some challenges (limitations) associated with humans and their personal gains that often may becloud consideration of these principles for just war. This paper urges the contemporary society to shift its focus from justifying war and regulating combatant activities to the prevention of war and the promotion of dialogue for mutual co-existence. This approach leads to stronger alliances, increased trust and a greater potential for finding shared solutions to global challenges. Moreover, from an ethical standpoint, the prevention of war aligns with fundamental principles of human rights, justice, and compassion. The promotion of harmony reflects our collective responsibility to protect and respect the dignity and well-being of all individuals. Humans should promote non-violence and means to peaceful resolutions that is the means to uphold the values of empathy, understanding, and equality.
Written By:
Egbonu, John Okwuchukwu, Ph.D
Okwycares@yahoo.com
Philosophy Department
St. Albert Institute,
Fayit-Fadan Kagoma Kaduna State
Abeh, Peter Akomaye
Abehpeter71@gmail.com