Just War theory is a doctrine which holds that a conflict can meet the criteria of
philosophical, religious or political justice, provided it follows certain conditions. The
doctrine of the just war has its foundations in ancient Greek society and was first developed in the Christian tradition by
Augustine in Civitas Dei, The City of God, in reaction to the
absolutist pacifist strain of Christian ethics based on the doctrine of "Turn the other cheek" espoused by Jesus of Nazareth
(Matthew 5:38-48). The "just war" doctrine can best be understood in the context of the "pacifism-just war" debate which continues to divide Christian and other ethical theorists, although it can
profitably be compared to other theories which attempt to justify war, such as Realism
(Realpolitik).
Theory
"Just War theory" encompasses modern political doctrines which promote the view that a specific war is just given satisfactory conditions.
While proponents claim such views have a long tradition, critics claim the application of Just War is only relativistic, and directly contradicts more universal
philosophical traditions such as the Ethic of reciprocity.[citation needed]
Just War theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary
for self-defense. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally
preferable. "It is an attempt to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces. Just War
theories attempt to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the
aim of establishing lasting peace and justice." [1]
The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero. [2]Augustine of Hippo[3], Thomas Aquinas[4] and Hugo Grotius later codified a set of rules for a just war, which
today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications. [citation needed]
The Just War tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the
concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern
of jus in bello). [5] In more recent
years, a third category — jus post bellum — has been added, which governs the
justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the trying of war criminals.
When is a war just by the criteria of Just War theory? (jus ad bellum)
In modern language, these rules hold that, in order to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force
(jus ad bellum):
- Just cause
- The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done
wrong. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only
to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
- Comparative justice
- While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the
injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
- Legitimate authority
- Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war
- Right intention
- Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right
intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
- Probability of success
- Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
- Last resort
- Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
(Note: these are only the most typical conditions cited by just war theorists.)
Conducting a just war (jus in bello)
Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act:
(Jus in bello)
- Discrimination
- Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the
inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create.
The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism
or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids weapons
of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic
bomb).
- Proportionality
- Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong
endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more
suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated.[6]
- Minimum Force
- Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. This principle is meant to limit excessive and
unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of
the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission.
Ending a war: jus post bellum
In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis
Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory.
Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties,
reconstruction, war crimes trials, and
war reparations. Orend, for instance, proposes the following principles:
- Just cause for termination
- A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place,
and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology,
compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation.
- Right intention
- A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The
victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces
may have committed.
- Public declaration and authority
- The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.
- Discrimination
- The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures
are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.
- Proportionality
- Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist
crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not
permitted.
Alternative theories
- Militarism - Militarism is the belief that war is not inherently bad, but rather can be a
beneficial aspect of society. For an historic account of this doctrine see Japanese
militarism.
- Realism - The core proposition of realism is a skepticism as to whether moral
concepts such as justice can be applied to the conduct of international affairs. Proponents of realism believe that moral
concepts should never prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behaviour. Instead, a state should place an emphasis on state
security and self-interest. One form of realism - descriptive realism - proposes that states cannot act morally, while another
form - prescriptive realism - argues that the motivating factor for a state is self-interest. Just wars that violate Just Wars
principles, effectively constitutes a branch of realism. Many ideologies agree with the tradition that war should be fought only
if done for a just cause but reject most if not all of the other criteria of the tradition. The Marxist tradition can be seen as
part of this category. For Marxists the only criteria is whether a war is "progressive" (by the
Marxist historical-progression definition) and it is irrelevant how costly the war may be.
- Revolution and Civil War - Just War Theory
states that a just war must have just authority. To the extent that this is interpreted as a legitimate government this leaves
little room for revolutionary war or civil war, in which an illegitimate entity may
declare war for reasons that fit the remaining criteria of Just War Theory. This is less of a problem if the "just authority" is
widely interpreted as "the will of the people" or similar. Certain types of civil war are specifically mentioned in Article 1.
Paragraph 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as covered by the international provisions of the Geneva Conventions
namely those ... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes
..., this gives those fighting against such states the same status under international law and "just authority" as a
legitimate government.
- Absolutism - Absolutism holds that there are various ethical rules that are, as the
name implies, absolute. Breaking such moral rules is never legitimate and therefore is always unjustifiable. The philosopher
Thomas Nagel is a well known supporter of this view, having defended it in his essay War
and Massacre.
- Pacifism - Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unacceptable and/or
pragmatically not worth the cost. Pacifists extend humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants,
especially conscripts.[7]
The just war tradition and the Iraq War
- See also: Views on the 2003
invasion of Iraq
In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq the question whether the war was a
just war was posed. Many of those on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in terms of the Just War. They came to quite
different conclusions because they put different interpretations on how the just war criteria should be applied. Supporters of
the war tended to accept the US position that the enforcement of UN resolutions was sufficient authority or even, as in the case
of the Land Letter, that the United States as a sovereign nation could count as legitimate
authority. Opponents of the war tended to interpret legitimate authority as requiring a specific Security Council
resolution.[8][9]
Just war theorists
Additional reading
- Heindel, Max, The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers - Volume II
(The Philosophy of
War, World War I reference, ed. 1918), ISBN 0-911274-90-1 (Describing a philosophy of war and just war concepts from a
Rosicrucian point of view)
- Benson, Richard, (The Just War Theory: A traditional Catholic moral view), The Tidings (2006). (Showing the
Catholic view in three points, including John Paul
II's position concerning war)
- Michael Walzer "Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical
Illustrations," 4th ed., (New York: Basic Books, 1977). ISBN 0-465-03707-0.
See also
External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
