In Michael’s Walzer’s “Just and Unjust Wars,” he discusses jus in bello in the context of what is referred to as ‘the war convention.’ This term is used for
“… the set of articulated norms, customs, professional codes, legal precepts, religious and philosophical principles, and reciprocal arrangements that shape our judgments of military conduct…” – Walzer, 1977, pg. 44
The war convention is meant to protect people’s right to life and liberty, and consists of two principles: The first principle states that “once war has begun, soldiers are subject to attack at any time (unless they are wounded or captured)” (Walzer, 1977, pg. 138), and the second states that “noncombatants cannot be attacked at any time” (Walzer, 1977, pg 151). For the purpose of this essay, I will focus on the first principle, explain why Walzer holds that this principle is unfair, and conclude that while there may be times when it is morally repugnant, the principle is actually fair. According to Walzer “[t]he purpose of the war convention is to establish the duties of belligerent states, or army commanders, and of individual soldiers with reference to the conduct of hostilities” (Walzer, 1977, pg.…show more content… In my opinion, this principle is fair. However, Walzer takes the opposite stance and claims “… that this principle is unfair; it is an example of class legislation. It does not take into account that few soldiers are wholeheartedly committed to the business of fighting” (Walzer, 1977, 138). In fact, they avoid fighting whenever they can and it is rarely a person’s chosen occupation. Walzer’s point here is that they do not willingly give up their protected noncombatant status. While soldiers have “battle field equality,” they are also equal as human beings. Soldiers are reluctant to kill another human being, but they do so because when at war, they find themselves in a ‘kill or be killed’ situation (Walzer,