Yes of course.
Past-English Civil War (the Parliamentarians), American Revolution (the Patriots), the Southron Rebellion (the Federals), World War II (the Allies), the Korean War (ROK/UN coalition)
Current-Afghan War (Afghan government/NATO)
Those are the guideline for “ius ad bellum”, the justification to go to war.
There is also the much trickier “ius in bello”, the thing you do in a war.
i would like to point to De Civitate Dei contra Paganos written by Augustine of Hippo an early work on the subject.
no opinion, i’m just pointing.
War of 1812
Please explain to me why the English Civil War was just.
Also – and I’m going to put this in the nicest way of which I am capable – will you please stop using the ridiculous word “Southron” in contexts in which it does not fit? It does not make you seem learned, erudite, precocious, clever, or witty. It is a pretentious and altogether silly usage. It actually IMPEDES communication, because it forces your reader to stop in mid-sentence to figure out what the bleep you’re talking about. I’d say it “stinks of the lamp” but I don’t want to be a hypocrite–
Wait, that’s not true. I’m supposed to be a hypocrite. My whole schtick is that I’m a horrible person.
Let me start again. Calling the US Civil War “the Southron Rebellion” is the sort of absurd, chichi remark Skald would like. It stinks of the lamp. It’s like swearing by Athena daughter of Metis daughter of Tethys daughter of Gaia the never-born. Surely you want to be a better man than the Rhymer. That’s, like, the bare minimum of civil behavior, says so in the Eddas.
The English Civil War was indeed just… for His Majesty, that is.
I think the only time I’ve ever seen that word is in the Lord of the Rings.
As everyone knows, all monarchs with the exception of Athena, Queen of Olympus, are at best untrustworthy, at worst outright evil. Therefore anything that is just in the eyes of a non-Athena monarch is suspect on its face.
It does mean “southern,” but primarily from the point of view of a Scot (to whom all English are Southrons) or a northern Englishperson (who’d consider southern English to be Southrons). I’ll admit that the OED gives “southern” as a final meaning, but that’s still a British POV, and everybody knows they’re a nation of herbivores. Charles Augustus Magnusson himself said so.
Qin’s usage must be stamped out. If we allow that, next people will start claiming that Athena younger than Hephaestus, and that way lies madness.
I checked 1, 2, 4, and 7.
1: I do indeed believe that there is such a thing as a just war, both in theory and in practice.
2. But I believe they’re quite rare. For instance, I would NOT agree that the American Revolution was a just war from either side. The circumstances preceding the Revolution were hardly so dire that they justified the killing of thousands of soldiers. The damage inflicted by the Brits on the Colonies was NOT “lasting, grave, and certain,” to go with the RCC’s just-war formulation, which I think is quite good.
4. WWII and the Civil War, both from the U.S.A. side.
7. Well, I can’t.
I think the rules for what makes for just use of violence on a personal level translate fairly well to what makes for just use of war on a national level. Basically, the use of force is only ever justifiable when the force was initiated by the other and the force used is reasonable, proportional, and all other options are exhausted or impractical. The list from the RCC provided upthread, I think, are a good guideline that I’d tend to agree with.
But this would also be why I’d agree that examples upthread, like the Barbary war or WW2 would be just wars from the perspective of the US, because the use of force was initiated by others, and there doesn’t appear to be any other options to resolve it. Similarly, I would agree that the American Revolution is unjust from both sides, as they basically took turns provoking and escalating the problem, it certainly wasn’t tyranny in the sense that we’ve seen many times since.
The American Revolution, World War 2, and the Star Wars trilogy 
Well, at least one old Civil War alternate history (I think Ward Moore’s “Bring the Jubilee”) used southron extensively.
As for the question, it might make more sense to think of wars where neither side was justified. Perhaps a war where both sides were trying to take land from the other, or the war was started from a pointless argument between two rulers, with the armies suffering the consequences. Gulf War II might be an example, with one side attacking for no good reason and the defenders defending a tyranny. The damage far outweighed the benefit. GW I on the other hand was justified.
To follow up on Shodan’s point, back in high school theology class (Jesuit school of course), we actually went through the exercise of applying the Catholic just war criteria to Desert Storm, and there wasn’t too much debate on either side- it met the criteria handily.
That’s not to say that some aspects of it weren’t horrible or overdone, but as a whole, the war to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqis was a just war.
IIRC, the WWII European theater was much the same way since it was a war of liberation for so many countries. The Pacific theater was a lot more blurry; it was more of a war of vengeance, although we managed to ultimately help free areas conquered by the Japanese, it wasn’t the primary goal of the war.
Definately a just war. Fucking elves had it coming.
Another who voted 1,4 and 7.
I’d class any resistance to an invading nation as a just war by default.
Definitely WWII. Those Nazi fuckers had to be stopped.
I think the Pacific War qualifies. Our enmity with Japan was based on opposition to their invasion of China which was a just cause. We tried other means to get Japan to leave and they didn’t work. We had the means to win the war so it wasn’t a hopeless cause. And the initiation of the war between us lay with Japan so we didn’t have the onus of declaring a pre-emptive war.
The Haitian Revolution.
So many prudent replies.Grude,Aji de Gallina,Athabasca But most impressive , the Honorable Wesley Clark If it’s the General I believe it is. Voyager brought a great juxstaposition between the civil war & O.D.S [ on behalf of Kuwait] .This is an un winnable topic with one exception. WWII, both the ETO & Pacific. WWI, [while vile] would not have spread so far, globally.WWII, had that potential. Yet, it’s just another marine’s opinion. And we all know what opinions are like !!!
People forget that the Japanese then were pretty much as bad as the Nazis.
So many prudent opinions.Grude,Aji de Gallia, Athabasca, Heck near all of ya ! Voyager brought a great juxtaposition between the American civil war & O.D.S.[ on behalf of Kuwait, in the latter].