According to Grotius, the only factors that should lead to a war include jus ad bellum, which involves particular conditions such as a just cause and a decision to engage in war that has come from the right authority. The other condition is that war should commence with the right intentions and as the only solution left. The third condition is that the final results should justify the means; good achievements must outweigh the evil of the war. Grotius identified three types of pursuits that can lead to war; these include punishment, self-defence and recovery of property (Grotius, 2012). Each of the pursuits has a basis in the natural law although a specific right can come from different sources such as national law. However, the right to self-defence arises from the individual permission one has to protect him or herself from any injury or attack. Moreover, the right of defence stretches from one’s property to one’s body. Grotius (2012) articulates that when one kills for the sake of defending his or her body, it is justifiable regardless of the assailant’s initial aim. The reason for that is based on the fact that no one can predict whether a physical assault will or will not result in death. Importantly, the justified self-defence has two constraints which are the certainty and imminence of the attack.
Moreover, Grotius argues that war is justifiable when the aim is to punish an offender or retrieve one’s given right. Moreover, he says that this breach of peace cannot be considered anti-social since the party initiating war is demanding what the other party owes them (Grotius, 2012). Punitive war is allowed in cases of serious crimes only, and that it can only be executed by the government seeing as the citizens have transferred that right to their state. Grotius argues that in order to resort to war, humanitarian concerns, whereby the impact on the people who are innocent is considered, must be taken into account alongside with justice. Grotius (2012) mentions that natural law provides one rule of war, which is: if one party has the right to start a war then they should vindicate just case by whatever means. However, Grotius states that natural justice is an unsatisfactory basis for combat ethics since it allows inhuman actions on the side of those who fight under a just cause. Grotius realizes that no war can be just naturally on both sides, which means that one side’s right precludes the right of the other side.
Was the Vietnam War Ethically Justifiable?
The Vietnam War was not ethically justifiable because it went against the Grotius’ principles of a just war. To begin with, the principles state that a war should redress an unjust suffering, for instance, an armed attack, but in this case, America justified its interference by fighting the spread of communism, however, Vietnam at the time posed no direct threat to the US, whether communist or not, but a brutal colonial war that lasted for nine years and took the lives of millions of people on both sides certainly did. During the attacks, innocent civilians suffered which also cannot be morally justified, as civilians are not targets of war hence they should be avoided (Grotius, 2012). Additionally, a just war is meant to re-establish peace, however, the Vietnam War caused the separation of the country into North and South Vietnam, where one was given full independence and the other was under the western influence which led to the continuation of war between North Vietnam and the America-controlled government in South Vietnam.
References
Grotius, H. (2012). Hugo Grotius on the law of war and peace. Cambridge University Press.
