The question of whether war is ever justified is one of the most morally and politically challenging debates in IB Global Politics. War causes widespread suffering, destruction, and long-term instability, yet states continue to argue that armed force is sometimes necessary. Evaluating this question requires weighing ethical principles, legal frameworks, and political realities rather than reaching a simplistic conclusion.
One argument in favour of justifying war focuses on self-defence. States claim that if they are attacked or face an imminent threat, they have a right to defend themselves using military force. From this perspective, war is justified as a last resort to protect sovereignty, citizens, and territorial integrity. In global politics, self-defence is often presented as the most legitimate reason for war.
Another argument is based on humanitarian intervention. Some argue that war may be justified to prevent large-scale human rights abuses, such as genocide or crimes against civilians. When peaceful options fail and a population faces extreme violence, military intervention is seen as a way to protect human life. In IB Global Politics, this raises difficult questions about sovereignty, responsibility, and who has the authority to intervene.
However, strong arguments oppose the justification of war. Critics argue that war almost always causes disproportionate harm, particularly to civilians. Even when intentions are presented as defensive or humanitarian, the reality of war includes civilian casualties, displacement, and long-term trauma. These consequences challenge claims of moral legitimacy.
Another key concern is abuse of justification. States may frame wars as defensive or humanitarian to pursue strategic interests such as territory, resources, or influence. This undermines trust and weakens international norms. In IB analysis, this highlights how power politics can distort moral arguments.
International law attempts to regulate war by setting strict conditions for its use. War is generally considered lawful only under limited circumstances, such as self-defence or collective action. However, enforcement is weak, and powerful states often avoid accountability. This gap between law and practice complicates claims that war can be justified.
Some argue that even when war meets legal or moral criteria, it should still be considered a failure of politics. War reflects the breakdown of diplomacy, cooperation, and conflict resolution. From this perspective, justification may explain war, but it does not excuse its human cost.
For IB Global Politics students, the strongest answers conclude that war may be conditionally justified in theory, but is deeply problematic in practice. High-level analysis evaluates arguments for and against justification, considers consequences, and recognises the tension between moral principles and political reality. The key insight is that justifying war requires extreme caution, critical evaluation, and awareness of its lasting impact.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is self-defence a valid justification for war?
Self-defence is often seen as the strongest justification. However, it must be necessary and proportionate. IB answers should evaluate how self-defence is used in practice.
Can war be justified for humanitarian reasons?
Some argue yes, to prevent mass atrocities. Others argue intervention causes further harm. IB students should present both perspectives.
Why is war seen as a failure of politics?
War reflects the breakdown of diplomacy and cooperation. Peaceful alternatives have failed. This view emphasises prevention over justification.
Does international law justify war?
International law allows war only in limited circumstances. Enforcement is weak, especially for powerful states. This gap is central to IB evaluation.
How should this question be answered in exams?
Students should evaluate moral, legal, and political arguments. Avoid absolute answers. Balanced judgement with consequences leads to higher marks.
