Just War Theory is defined by two sets of criteria; the right to go to war and the right conduct within war. The right to go to war is defined by having just cause, comparative justice, legitimate authority, the right intention, a probability of success, as a last resort and proportionality. In layman’s terms, war is waged in terms of self-defense or in defense of another. Once the war has began Just War Theory guides how the sides should act. Distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality and military necessity (Wikipedia.com).
When you analyze this theory, it leaves a lot to be deciphered by personal opinion. The theories criterion states that in order to wage a war there must be a justifiable, moral reason or cause to enter into war. What makes this difficult is that everybody has different morals and beliefs as to what is right wrong. Thus what one group of people see as a just, morally acceptable reason to go to war, another group will disagree. Once you are in war, you must act in a way that is “fair” for all sides involved. The problem here is that different groups of people will define ‘how much is too much’ differently; another criterion that is defined by the eye of the beholder. Although this theory gives us a good framework, it is too broad in its definition. The problem also arises when people begin to question the justness in continuing a war after the initial morality of it has worn off.