JUST WAR, REVOLUTIONS, AND CIVIL CONFLICT
This research examines the support for pursuit of civil conflict (civil war may be a preferable term for some) and revolutions within the context of the concept of a just war. Following a consideration of the concept of a just war, specific instances of civil conflict and revolutionary activity are examined to assess the extent to which those actions were supportable within the context of a just war.
War or the threat of the use of force is the traditional approach to conflict resolution in the conduct of international relations and in the more extreme instances of disagreement among factions within a state. Although each national state and each faction within a state tends to reserve a monopoly on violence for itself, through mutual diplomatic recognition of one another, national states also recognize the legitimacy of the wars they wage. Factions within states who choose to stage a revolution or other form of civil war, however, must seek a legitimacy for their actions through other principles.
Francisco de Vitoria established the modern concept of international law with respect to war which holds that war is licit as a last resort when all other means of persuasion have failed. Thus, within this concept, war becomes an extension of political participation and diplomacy. This concept goes on to hold that the cause that justifies war is the violation of a right, and that "an essential condition for the licitness of a war is that the evils resulting from it will not be greater than the good intended." A major problem with this premise is that different parties may perceive the relative values of good and evil associated with a particular revolution or civil ware quite differently. In the 1980s, as an example, the Reagan Administration in the United States found no problems in justifying the activities of the Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua, whil...