The war of 1812 is often called the second war for American independence. The two sides of the war where the United States and Britain. Tensions began to rise in the beginning of the 19th century, when Britain was locked in a long conflict with France. In an attempt to stop supplies from reaching the enemy, both sides began to block the United States from trading with the other. In 1807, the Royal Navy also outraged Americans by removing seamen from merchant ships and forced them to serve on the behalf of the British. There were also fears that the British were attempting to rally the Native Americans to fight the colonists. Because of this many Americans at the time believe the war was justified by using the Just War Theory. There are many arguments which support this idea, however the Just War Theory does not support the War of 1812.The first part of Just War Theory is Jus Ad Bellum to see if it was justified for the United States to go to war with England. The biggest argument is Just Cause as the British used impressment upon sailors from other countries. The British forced U.S merchants to join the Royal Navy. This can be used to easily prove one point of Jus Ad Bellum and can being an argument for another. The United States could state that they declared War to safeguard the rights of its own citizens. Another factor that they can argue is the protection of innocent. This can be argued as the British were taking innocent civilians to boost their navy, however they forced these civilians to help them. Theses civilians where basically slaves to the British. Another part of the Jus Ad Bellum can be argued that the Battle of Tippecanoe was self-defense. This is clear as there had been two things happening. First chief Tecumseh and his brother, The Prophet, were working to build a confederation of tribes to resist western settlers. The other part of this was Indian attacks in the Indiana Territory persisted. This can be used in the War of 1812 as they had been joined with British military. However even though it seems to be supported by Jus Ad Bellum, there are multiple parts of the War which are not met. The biggest proving point of this is the War Hawks. These War Hawks wanted to go to war with the British, which can be used to disprove the Right Intention. There was multiple motives behind them wanting the War. They also do not meet proportionality. This is due to the good not outweighing the cost, nothing truly horrible happened to cause a declaration of war. Therefore, Jus Ad Bellum is not met for the War of 1812. The second part of attempting to justify the Just War Theory is using Jus In Bello, to see if the way the United States conducted themselves during the war was ethical. While there is a strong argument the United States acted very close to the guidelines set by Jus in Bello. They did not seem to discriminate or give immunity for Non-Combatants. This is due to the razing of a Canadian Village of Newark. This cause them to fail The final part of the theory is Jus Post Bellum, in which it will be used to see the way the war was concluded was ethical and just. The war ended in a draw between the United States and the British with the treaty of Ghent. Both sides only lost resources and life with nothing to gain. Both side agreed to the terms that they receive what they had before the war began. Because of this, there is no just peace. None of the requirements were met for a just peace as nothing changed between either sides. There was no rights vindicated as impressment, a major cause for the war was not even mentioned within the treaty. Because of this alone, the argument that Jus Post Bellum was fulfilled through the signing of the War can not be considered. Even though some parts of the War of 1812 can be supported using the Just War theory, most Jus In Bello. The argument that is was a just war falls apart quite quickly afterwards. While they meet many of the guidelines set by the Just War Theory, the requirement is all of them to be met. For the most part they meet Just Cause, All of Jus In Bello except one. However they do not meet Right Intention, Immunity for Non-combatants, and all of Jus Post Bellum.