The just war tradition has largely consisted of dialogues, approaches, and frameworks dominated by the conceptual primacy of the individual. While such focus upon the individual is appropriate for many battlefield contexts, it is by no means exhaustive. My aim is to demonstrate that in addition to battlefield harms amenable to traditional individually-oriented approaches, there exists another set of unique battlefield harms problematic for such individualistic approaches and thus warranting a structural account instead. I will conclude that in order for Just War Theory to be fully adequate, it must both recognize the unique set of battlefield harms caused by structures as well as account for them by means of a notion of structural responsibility. / Graduate