Under the "Just War Theory," a conflict is deemed unjust if one of the jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and in jus bello (the right to conduct war) is not met. In "The Moral Equality of Combatants," by Carl Ceulemans, he says combatants cannot be blamed under jus ad bellum responsibility. In the argument, Ceulemans concludes combatants only become unjust combatants when they are aware of their involvement in the illegitimate activity of an unjust war. He then provides different scenarios which give the discrepancies of adhering to ad jus bellum and the in jus bello responsibilities of combatants. Ceulemans divides the argument into three parts: military subordination, serving an unjust government and serving a just government in an unjust war. His anecdotal evidence leads to the conclusion that under a legitimate government, whether a war is just or unjust, a combatant has moral equality. .
Before breaking down Ceulemans' argument it is important to understand how he views the roles of ad bellum and in bello principles of a just war. Like Michael Walzer, Ceulemans sperates the two principles. The main focus of the combatant is limited to his/her "in bello responsibility." These in bello responsibilities include: never intentionally targeting noncombatants (discrimination) and a particular act of war has to outweigh the damage it will cause (decreased collateral damage). When he makes the claim, he solely rests ad bellum responsibility with the political decision makers. Due to this providing confusing grounds for aggressor combatants verse defensive combatants, he states it is based on circumstances. The military is limited to jus in bello because it is subordinate to political authority. The legitimate role he claims is to be subordinate to the political authority and if it does not adhere to this then it has no authority. The role of the government is to be held accountable.