How do non-state actors interpret Just War Theory?

Non-state actors interpret Just War Theory based on their ideological, political, or religious beliefs and objectives.

Just War Theory, a doctrine of military ethics, is traditionally interpreted by states and their governments. However, non-state actors such as terrorist groups, insurgents, and private military companies also have their interpretations of this theory. These interpretations are often influenced by their ideological, political, or religious beliefs and objectives, which can significantly differ from the conventional understanding of Just War Theory.

For instance, some non-state actors may argue that their cause is just, and therefore their war is justified, even if it involves acts that are generally considered unethical or illegal under international law, such as targeting civilians. They may also believe that they have a legitimate authority to wage war, even though they are not recognised as a state. This is often the case with insurgent groups who claim to represent a particular ethnic, religious, or political group.

Moreover, non-state actors may interpret the principle of proportionality differently. While Just War Theory traditionally requires that the harm caused by war should not outweigh the good it is expected to achieve, non-state actors may argue that any harm is justified if it helps them achieve their objectives. This can lead to acts of violence that are disproportionate to the perceived threat or injustice.

Non-state actors may also disregard the principle of discrimination, which requires that combatants should distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, and only target the former. Some non-state actors, particularly terrorist groups, deliberately target civilians to create fear and pressure governments to meet their demands.

Finally, non-state actors may interpret the principle of last resort differently. While Just War Theory requires that all peaceful means of resolving a conflict should be exhausted before resorting to war, non-state actors may argue that they have no other option but to use violence, especially if they believe that peaceful means have failed or are unlikely to succeed.

In conclusion, non-state actors' interpretations of Just War Theory can significantly differ from the conventional understanding of this theory, and are often influenced by their ideological, political, or religious beliefs and objectives.