.
In this part of the argument Ceulemans states, "In a war the combatants on both sides are to be considered as moral equals because they both subordinate to their respective political authorities" (Ceulemans). This means that the military does not have authority to say it is just or unjust. Under this assumption it clearly falls under the jus in bello. Ceulemans makes a great argument for the justification of why a combatant does not have the grounds to claim if a war is just or unjust. However, these are under the presumption the government has political legitimacy. What if the government is unjust? The author explains the doctrine of Double Effect and the idea that when a government is unjust so is the combatant. Within the doctrine, an unjust combatant will have double the consequence. If they follow orders, their family is safe. The ladder is that they contribute to an immoral regime and the death of those who justly fight or resist. Those who turn a blind eye out of fear of losing their privileges are under the status of unjust combatants. When those combatants know that the regime or political institution is illegitimate some people claim it changes the status of the combatant. John Rawls describes imperfect procedural justice in relation to a criminal procedure and its design to ensure a just outcome. The imperfection may in fact lead to the implication of a guilty person set free or an innocent person found guilty. In an illegitimate government, the use of the idea of imperfect procedural argument brings forth the possible military ad bellum responsibility. The example used was holding an executioner responsible for executing a death sentence in a flawed trial. The problem at hand is the awareness. If the government is illegitimate and the military leaders and combatants know of the unjust nature of this government and by choosing to participate, they are then disregarding the ad bellum principle.
