A Comparative Study of Just War in the Thoughts of St. Augustine, Michael Walzer, and Contemporary Shiite Jurists

One of the serious debates of the 21st century about the start of wars by governments is whether they are just or unjust. As if from a theoretical point of view, it has been discussed among thinkers from the distant past and has continued until now. To understand the changes that have taken place in these ideas and also the difference between the Church Fathers and the Shiite jurists; The present study compares just war in the ideas of St. Augustine, Michael Walzer, and contemporary Shiite jurists. The present research is theoretical-applied in terms of nature and descriptive-analytical in terms of study method. The data collection method is based on two methods library and questionnaire. For this purpose, the views of eleven jurists and the authority of imitation have been examined based on the questionnaire and their written works. The results showed that there are more commonalities between the views of Shiite jurists and the ideas of St. Augustine than Walzer's ideas about just war. At the same time, all three ideas were most similar in terms of the goals of a just war and the issue of helping oppressed nations, and most of all in terms of the terms of a just war and the reasons for its legitimacy. The findings also show that Augustine and Shiite jurists introduce the rulers and God as the decision-makers for a just war. Walzer emphasizes the role of public opinion, the people and the UN Security Council as decision-makers.The theory of just war is one of the most important theories of pacifism and the establishment of an ideal society in political philosophy, which was designed and developed by philosophical and jurisprudential thinkers.Just War, St. Augustine, Michael Walzer, Contemporary Shiite Jurists, Jihad