War must be the last resort

War must be the last resort

War must be the last resort

There are differing views as to what the term 'last resort' actually means in the context of an ethical war.

The traditional view

A state should only go to war if it has tried every sensible, non-violent alternative first.

This is because a state should not put lives at risk unless it's tried other remedies first.

The alternatives might include diplomacy, economic sanctions, political pressure from other nations, withdrawal of financial aid, condemnation in the United Nations, and so on.

These alternatives should be tried exhaustively and sincerely before violence is used.

Another view

Some writers don't think that 'last' in last resort refers to the sequence of time. They argue that last resort means that the use of force is ethical only when it is really necessary and when no reasonable alternative is left.

They say that that war should be the least preferred course of action, but not necessarily the course of action that isn't tried until after every other course of action has failed.

They argue that sometimes it will be morally better to go to war sooner rather than later.

This might be because waiting too long would allow the enemy to do much more damage, or kill more people than an early war would have done; or may allow the enemy to become so established in another country's territory than far greater force will have to be used to remove him than would have been needed earlier.