“The jus ad bellum criteria may be summarily defined as follows.

Just cause — This is the main criterion of the Just War Tradition, and it deals with the requirements to be met before a state engages in war. These requirements are usually said to be self-defense against a real attack, and defense against an imminent attack. This not only presupposes the moral legitimacy of the state, but there is much discussion today concerning whether humanitarian intervention or pre-emptive strikes are just causes. We will not delve too deeply into these specific issues here. Our main focus will be on Iraq.

Right Intention — One can easily see that the just cause condition heavily influences, if it does not determine, right intention. The right intention requires that war be fought only to correct a current injustice or an engaged or forthcoming military attack. Acts of military aggression are ruled out by this criterion, as well as by that of just cause.

Proper Authority — Only state authority can launch a war. How this state authority works to do so varies between countries, but the point of this requirement is that only those state authorities who are so constituted by a state constitution are entitled to decide to go to war, not individuals or other corporate entities.

Last resort — This condition requires that all peaceful alternatives to war be reasonably exhausted before the war is commenced. While some criticize this criterion on the grounds that it could never be fulfilled, the operative term “reasonable” presents the proper meaning of this constraint on war. Probability of success—A state should not go to war unless there is strong evidence that they can win the war they are contemplating. This can be interpreted more along pragmatic than ethical lines, but taking a nation into a war doomed to failure would cost many lives increase suffering and even threaten the nation’s existence unnecessarily. These concerns are distinctly moral.

Proportionality — This requires that the overall good from the war outweigh the evil that the war will cause. This is necessarily predictive and consequential in form, but it expresses a crucial limitation on war’s conduct.

The jus in bello criteria, meaning “laws in war,” is directed at the specific actions in war. Thus, it concerns the conduct of soldiers and their commanders.

Proportionality — Any given military action must be constrained by the goal it attempts to achieve. This means that the use of weapons of mass destruction, for instance, nuclear or biological weapons, not be used because they go beyond the legitimate ends of a battle by allowing the destruction exceed what is needed for victory.

Discrimination/Noncombatant Immunity — This element requires that soldiers make sure they target only those who seek to harm them in some way. This means that civilians are immune to direct attack. There are many questions and gray areas that are involved here, but it nonetheless remains a widely-held ethical criterion.”

Liebe Frau König: Der Zweck heiligt nicht die Mittel — nicht in Tschetschenien, nicht in Palästina und auch nicht im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Wenn wir uns nicht besser verhalten als die Bösewichter, haben die Bösewichter gewonnen. Nur weil ein paar braune Nappel daraus politischen Profit ziehen wollen, werden wir nicht grundlegende Regeln über Bord werfen wollen, oder dürfen unsere Mädchen und Jungen in Afghanistan auf alles schießen, was sich bewegt? – Eben.