Just War Theory: A Tradition Of War Ethics

On War

In the last 3400 years, we have only been at peace for 268 years – around 8%. The other 92% has been spent in conflict, brutally killing each other and fighting. In the 20th century, at least 108 million people have been killed in various wars. In about two years, as a Singaporean Citizen, my brother will have to serve in the Singaporean military for two years. Although Singapore is not an active war zone or involved in any wars, the thought that my brother could one day be drafted to war is a chilling one.

War, being such a prominent part of human history as well as one that has literally claimed millions of lives, has been a topic of interest to philosophers, theologists, and ethicists. They question the nature of war and whether it should be justified. This is at the core of Just War Theory (JMT), a tradition of war ethics studied by policymakers to ethicists. The doctrine aims to provide criteria for morally justifiable war. The criterion is split into 2 main groups; the morality of going to war – jus ad bellum and the moral conduct within war – jus in bello. Recently, scholars have been considering a third category; jus post bellum, which would deal with the post-war moral issues.

In the early fifth century, St. Augustine wrote City of God and coined the term “Just War.” He based his theory on the Christian principles laid out in the Romans 13:4 Bible verse. Augustine claimed that even though war should never be the answer, sometimes it is necessary to gain peace. And with this, he started the Christian tradition of just war.

900 years later, Thomas Aquinas, an Aristotelian philosopher wrote Summa Theologica and expanded on Augustine’s views. He explained the terms and conditions for war to be justifiable. The three points he addressed built the foundation for JWT. The aim of JWT is to guide us to act in a moral way during a conflict. It teaches us that war, except in certain limited circumstances, is wrong. In his response to the question of war in Summa Theologica, Aquinas claimed the following; war is just when waged by the proper authority, when it has a just cause and when it has the right intentions. His theory has a lot of weight in the current philosophy of war as many philosophers have expanded on it developed it further. However, many other scholars have also refuted it and provided examples that contradict the legitimacy of his theory. This leading to the central claim; although his Just War Theory, Thomas Aquinas raises some important arguments, his theory is weak in its application to the real world as well as its relevance today.

Within JWT, the moral concerns surrounding war are divided into two main categories. Jus ad bellum which concerns the justification for the initiation of war and Jus in bello which refers to moral conduct in battle. Both must be satisfied in order for a war to be just.

Jus ad bello, the right of war, is a set of criterion to determine whether entering into war is just. The first rule; proper authority claims that war has to be declared by proper authority. The governor of New York would not be the proper authority but the President of the United States would. “The first thing is the authority of the prince by whose command the war is to be waged. It does not belong to a private person to start a war,” (Aquinas). Dictatorships such as Hitler’s regime are violations of this. The second rule, comparative justice, says that the injustice suffered by one party must outweigh that suffered by the other. Thirdly, the reasons for going to war must be just. The use of war should only protect life. Examples include self-defense, protecting the innocent, preventing genocide, etc. The aim of war is not to pursue national interests but to reach a just-peace, a state preferable to the state if the war were to not occur. Further, as Aquinas points out, we need just cause “so that they who are assailed should deserve to be assailed for some fault that they have committed.” (Aquinas). Related to this we have the right intention rule. Force may be used only for the purpose of correcting a suffered wrong. Peace must be the central motive even in the midst of violence “right intention of promoting good or avoiding evil” (Aquinas). Aquinas condemns wars that have the intention of “Eagerness to hurt, the bloodthirsty desire of revenge, an untamed and unforgiving temper, ferocity in renewing the struggle, dust of empire” (Aquinas).

There must also be a probability or a reasonable chance of success. If there is no chance of success, there can be no chance in using warfare to rid an injustice. Next is proportionality. The good that might be accomplished a result of the war must be outweighed by the anticipated harm. Lastly, war must only be used as the last resort. All non-violent options such as sanctions must be attempted or ruled out. Examples of jus ad bellum include the UN Charter which binds nations to seek a resolution by peaceful means and requires authorization by the UN before initiating force.

Jus in bello provides rules for acceptable conduct while in war. It guides how combatants should act. The first rule says that just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants and not towards non-combatants, or the innocent. Then, proportionality which urges the use of minimal force. And finally, just war conduct should be governed by the principle of military necessity. The attack should not be excessive and should be in relation to attacks anticipated. Examples of Jus in bello include the Geneva Conventions which protection of civilians in wartime or the need for proportionality when force is used.

Because of the broad and vague descriptions, JWT can be interpreted in many different ways leading to many problems in the argument. discussed thus leading to different interpretations of the theory, JWT has many strengths and weaknesses; namely, it is lacking in its applicability and relevance.

Aquinas’s arguments are rational and moral in principle, however, the weakness stems from the fact that the argument is only successful when implemented to the real world. It is great in theory but one must question its applicability and relevance to real life.

In modern war, the side of right and wrong can be blurred as both sides will claim to have just cause. Both sides are going to believe they are just and moral. For instance, the US identifies with the just war theory and says that their “war against terror” is just. Nearly all US citizens view the Muslim terrorist attacks such as 9/11 are immoral acts of aggression. However, the other side may claim that the US and its allies are the greater aggression by far since they indiscriminately target the entire population of the less developed countries for subjugation, oppression, exploitation, and genocide. Both sides view their side as justified and the other as absurd, immoral and heinous. Right intention also depends on our subjective opinions; what I may consider a right intention may not necessarily be right to somebody else. Anything can be argued as having a just cause and right intentions. Further, people can always justify a war in hindsight. The theory can be applied to make any war appear just. Both sides will apply it in such a way that their claim is apparently just and yet both claims can’t be equally valid.

Next, JWT is based on the fact that both the sides will be fair and mutually agree on rules of combat. However, when the two sides differ due to race, religion or culture, they may see each other as less human and in such cases, moral war conventions are rarely applied. The prime example of this would be China’s invasion of Tibet, the Rwanda war or Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. When the two parties can’t even see each other as human, sharing a moral identity is out of the question.

JWT is a great theory but it is very idealistic, as there is no guarantee that people will follow this at all. Practically, it depends on how many people are going to employ this and adhere to it. It is very idealistic to believe that during war or at the time of initiating war, people will consider the moral implications.

The next point of weakness is in its relevance today. Although JWT can help us think about morality even in conflict today, we have to question how it can help us in the face of things more relevant today such as like terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). JWT is too simple and ambiguous to apply in the 21st-century world.

With the advent of WMD, the whole nature of war changes as they have to power to destroy entire cities. JWT can only help us so much but in light of something this extreme, it requires a very different, more relevant set of rules and notions of morality.

The second are JWT may not be as relevant is with terrorism. Terrorism is essentially the killing of innocent people to create fear and display power. They don’t consult moral theory nor are in the position to listen. Just war theory is about mutualism and when both parties agree on being fair in the conduct of and during a war so when in the face of terrorism, this theory has no relevance because the basic requirement of its implementation is missing. The problem with relevance also arises when different war theories are present. For example, Muslims have their own JWT which they use to justify their actions. The Islamic discourse on war and peace begins from the teaching that some types of war are permissible—indeed, required by God. Under Islamic Just War Theory, Just Cause is generally recognized as self-defense or a battle for the expansion of the faith. Bin Laden stated that his actions were a form of Muslim self-defense, when he said, “Americans should expect reactions from the Muslim world that are proportionate to the injustice they inflict” (I am not sympathizing with terrorists when I say this, I am simply arguing that anybody can justify anything). JWT is solid in theory but its the application and relevance are the roots of the problem.

One might argue that the JWT is strong because it protects the innocent from harm. Due to the principles of distinction and proportionality, there is a strong focus on not harming non-combatants. And this has been actually put into practice for instance; the Coalition decision not to push into Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War as there was to large a risk of killing and injuring civilians. In addition, the western military has a heavy focus on precision weapons to avoid as much collateral damage.

However, not everybody follows this, and in fact, some might say that it has gotten a lot worse and cite the example of WW1 where civilian deaths were at 10%; compare that to modern wards such as the internal conflict in Syria or the US invasion of Iraq, civilian deaths now range from 80 percent to 90 percent of all war casualties. Once again, the JWT is only as strong as often as it is implemented.

Once again, even though JWT makes some very valid points, such as protecting the innocent and being proportional, this is very idealistic and is lacking in how it can be applied in the real world as well as its relevance today. But, war is a complicated issue and the path to finding the answer can’t be an easy one.

Work Cited

1. Aquinas, St Thomas. (1988). Politics and Ethics. Norton.
2. Augustine, St. (1984). City of God. Penguin.
3. John Kelsay, Islam and War: A Study in Comparative Ethics 39 (1993) edited by Herbert G. May, Bruce M. Metzger.
4. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha : Revised Standard Version, Containing the Second Edition of the New Testament and an Expanded Edition of the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print.