Among the Jus ad Bellum principles, the most convincing doctrine is the one which classifies war as a last resort. Territories should engage in war when non-military sanctions, arbitrations, and all other forms of negotiations have failed to produce an amicable solution to differences. The principle embraces the preservation of human life, and hence leaders have to engage in all efforts possible to prevent materialization of military action. The least convincing principle is that of comparing justice on both sides engaged in the war (Widdows, 2014 p.181). It is difficult to accomplish because both parties in a war strive to maintain that they are seeking justice in the military action.
Among the Jus in Bello doctrines, the most convincing principle is the approach of discrimination where combatants have to differentiate between military personnel and civilians. Members of the public of the conflicting countries are supposed to be protected and not directly targeted by the armed forces. However, the application of nuclear weapons of mass destruction is likely to render this kind of discrimination and protection impossible. The least convincing theory is that of proportionality (Widdows, 2014 p.183). In typical war contexts, armed forces fail to use weapons that are proportional to the threat they face. There is the application of excess force as long as a given territory defeats its rival.
The Jus ad Bellum and Jus ad Bello considerations are related in the sense that they offer dictates that different war settings are supposed to embrace. However, the doctrines are not always embraced in different conflict situations between different territories as experienced in the past. It is possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and unjust war to be conducted in accordance with the rules (Widdows, 2014 p.184). If the just war is conducted in unjust ways that proceed to infringe on the rights of and killing the innocent civilians, it can be deemed as an unjust war.
Reference
Widdows, H. (2014). Global ethics: An introduction. Routledge.pp:181-184
