UK Involvement in WW1: Unjust War

I believe that the U.K’s involvement in WWI was unjust because they did not comply to all the aspects of Just War Theory. To analyze why, we must incorporate the different components of Just War Theory; Jus Ad bellum, Jus In Bello, and Jus Post Bellum.

Jus Ad Bellum

I believe that the U.K was just in Jus Ad Bellum because they legally declared war against Germany on August 4th, 1914 according to the U.K. national archives. The thing they did not try, though, is attempting a peace treaty. The reason that I think attempts of peace weren’t important was because the most likely reason that the U.K entered the war was to help France defend against Germany. The reason France was not prepared was because, as Encyclopedia 1914-1918 Online states, “Great Britain’s participation was almost guaranteed not just by the German declaration of war against Belgium, but by the size and immediacy of their invasion and violation of Belgian neutrality.” Belgium was a neutral country and rules of war forbid invasion of neutral countries. This is why I can leave an exception for peace attempts because of how much shock there must have been when a neutral country was invaded and had opened a weakness in the U.K’s ally. The only option was to send help in the form of troops for the time being.

Jus In Bello

I believe the most essential part of Jus in Bello is the weapons that a side uses. Ulf Shmit says on Springer Link.com that: “On September 1916, the first use of the Livens Projector, an ad hoc device consisting of a steel tube,... dug into the ground at an angle of 45°... bombs containing 30 lb (15 kg) of chemical agents, generally phosgene (CG), could be fired directly into enemy lines,... In April 1917, at the Battle of Arras, the British used the Livens Projector for a full-scale, deadly attack.” The U.K. used chemical weapons during WWI. The U.K was acting against the rulings of Jus In Bello.

Okay, so now the war is done, but there are still rules and ways to be unjust, one of which is prisoner treatment and relocation. Alex Browne, on Historyhit.com, says that: “both the British and French used German prisoners as labour on the Western Front.” This was fair treatment in Jus Post Bellum. He also says that “The Western Allies organised repatriation of German and Austro-Hungarian prisoners after the Armistice.” This is also considered just treatment of prisoners, But the U.K. and its allies still held peace conferences without the opposition. Gabrielle Kramer, on Historyhit.com, says that: “the treaty produced at the conference was drafted primarily by France, Britain and the United States. Minor Allied powers had little say, while the Central Powers had no say whatsoever.” and then forced them to sign an agreement which gave Germany a HUGE economic disadvantage, what the U.K did is the exact opposite of helping a nation recover. I think releasing prisoners doesn’t compensate for the unfairness that they treated Germany and the Central Powers with by forcing them to sign the Treaty of Versailles. The definition of the treaty on Encyclopaedia Britannica says that The Treaty of Versailles is a peace document that was signed by the Allies and Germany on June 28, 1919. I consider the U.K unjust in Jus Post Bellum. Recap time. The U.K. was just in Jus Ad Bellum, but they weren’t just in Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum. I consider the U.K’s involvement in World War One Unjust Overall.