One of the most influential and known view regarding the morality of war is the Just War Theory wherein certain requirements must be met in order to justify a war being fought by a state. The traditional Just War Theory judges wars in two principles, the justice of resorting into war in the first place, jus ad bellum and the justice in the conduct of war, jus in bello. Most just war theorists claim that the two must be independent of each other, that is, one may find himself in a war wherein the jus ad bellum is just, meaning the justice of war itself is just, while the jus in bello is unjust, and vice versa. This paper will tackle and evaluate the conditions given by the just war theory. Also, this paper will argue that jus ad bellum and jus in bello must be not be independent of each other when justifying a war. Jus in bello must follow from jus ad bellum and the two principles must be met before one can say that a particular war is just. The dependence of the two principles will also imply that the cause has a great bearing in determining whether a particular action or conduct in war is just or unjust. This will also be an argument against the “moral equality of soldiers.”