Just war theory
The just war theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of [|criteria], all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: #Jus ad bellum and #Jus in bello. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option, but justifiable when justice is an objective of armed conflict. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.
Opponents of the just war theory may either be inclined to a stricter pacifist standard or they may be inclined toward a more permissive nationalist standard. In many cases, philosophers state that individuals do not need to be plagued by a guilty conscience if they are required to fight. A few philosophers ennoble the virtues of the soldier while they also declare their apprehensions for war itself. A few, such as Rousseau, argue for insurrection against oppressive rule.
The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition", deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. The just war tradition also considers the writings of various philosophers and lawyers through history, and examines both their philosophical visions of war's ethical limits and whether their thoughts have contributed to the body of conventions that have evolved to guide war and warfare.
In the twenty-first century there has been significant debate between traditional just war theorists, who largely support the existing law of war and develop arguments to support it, and revisionists who reject many traditional assumptions, although not necessarily advocating a change in the law.
Origins
Ancient Egypt
A 2017 study found that the just war tradition can be traced as far back as to Ancient Egypt. Egyptian ethics of war usually centered on three main ideas, these including the cosmological role of Egypt, the pharaoh as a divine office and executor of the will of the gods, and the superiority of the Egyptian state and population over all other states and peoples. Egyptian political theology held that the pharaoh had the exclusive legitimacy in justly initiating a war, usually claimed to carry out the will of the gods. Senusret I, in the Twelfth Dynasty, claimed, "I was nursed to be a conqueror...his son and his protector, he gave me to conquer what he conquered." Later pharaohs also considered their sonship of the god Amun-Re as granting them absolute ability to declare war on the deity's behalf. Pharaohs often visited temples prior to initiating campaigns, where the pharaoh was believed to receive their commands of war from the deities. For example, Kamose claimed that "I went north because I was strong to attack the Asiatics through the command of Amon, the just of counsels." A stele erected by Thutmose III at the Temple of Amun at Karnak "provides an unequivocal statement of the pharaoh's divine mandate to wage war on his enemies." As the period of the New Kingdom progressed and Egypt heightened its territorial ambition, so did the invocation of just war aid the justification of these efforts. The universal principle of Maat, signifying order and justice, was central to the Egyptian notion of just war and its ability to guarantee Egypt virtually no limits on what it could take, do, or use to guarantee the ambitions of the state.India
The Indian Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, offers the first written discussions of a "just war". In it, one of five ruling brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified. A long discussion then ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality, just means, just cause, and fair treatment of captives and the wounded.In Sikhism, the term dharamyudh describes a war that is fought for just, righteous or religious reasons, especially in defence of one's own beliefs. Though some core tenets in the Sikh religion are understood to emphasise peace and nonviolence, especially before the 1606 execution of Guru Arjan by Mughal Emperor Jahangir, military force may be justified if all peaceful means to settle a conflict have been exhausted, thus resulting in a dharamyudh.
East Asian
produced a massive body of work on warfare, much of it during the Zhou dynasty, especially the Warring States era. War was justified only as a last resort and only by the rightful sovereign; however, questioning the decision of the emperor concerning the necessity of a military action was not permissible. The success of a military campaign was sufficient proof that the campaign had been righteous.Japan did not develop its own doctrine of just war but between the 5th and the 7th centuries drew heavily from Chinese philosophy, and especially Confucian views. As part of the Japanese campaign to take the northeastern island Honshu, Japanese military action was portrayed as an effort to "pacify" the Emishi people, who were likened to "bandits" and "wild-hearted wolf cubs" and accused of invading Japan's frontier lands.
Ancient Greece and Rome
The notion of just war in Europe originates and is developed first in ancient Greece and then in the Roman Empire.It was Aristotle who first introduced the concept and terminology to the Hellenic world that called war a last resort requiring conduct that would allow the restoration of peace. Aristotle argues that the cultivation of a military is necessary and good for the purpose of self-defense, not for conquering: "The proper object of practising military training is not in order that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in order that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others".
Stoic philosopher Panaetius considered war inhuman, but he contemplated just war when it was impossible to bring peace and justice by peaceful means. Just war could be waged solely for retribution or defense, in both cases having to be declared officially. He also established the importance of treating the defeated in a civilized way, especially those who surrendered, even after a prolonged conflict.
In ancient Rome, a "just cause" for war might include the necessity of repelling an invasion, or retaliation for pillaging or a breach of treaty. War was always potentially nefas, and risked religious pollution and divine disfavor. A "just war" thus required a ritualized declaration by the fetial priests. More broadly, conventions of war and treaty-making were part of the ius gentium, the "law of nations", the customary moral obligations regarded as innate and universal to human beings.
Christian views
Christian Just War thinking is often thought to begin with Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, before being developed further by his contemporary Saint Augustine of Hippo. The Just War theory, with some amendments, is still used by Christians today as a guide to whether or not a war can be justified, and how it should be fought. Christians may argue "Sometimes war may be necessary and right, even though it may not be good." In the case of a country that has been invaded by an occupying force, for example, war may be the only way to restore justice.Saint Ambrose
Influenced by Roman law, and Cicero in particular, Ambrose believed that war was legitimate only for defensive purposes or the punishment of serious wrongdoing, and rulers were obliged to respect treaties, avoid exploiting enemies and treat the defeated with mercy. Ambrose also seems to have regarded military force as permissible against heretics, or in support of Christian orthodoxy. Nevertheless, he strictly prohibited the Church from direct involvement in violence, insisting that clergy must not take up arms themselves. Similarly, warfare had to be undertaken only to fulfill divine law, not for personal motives, and any war driven by emotional excess, vindictiveness or other disordered intentions fell outside the moral limits he envisioned.Saint Augustine
held that Christians should not resort immediately to violence, but that God has given the sword to governments for a good reason. In Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22 sections 69–76, the main source for his just war ideas, Augustine argues that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when they are obliged to do so. Augustine regarded intention as the main determinant of whether a war was just or sinful: "What is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart."Nonetheless, Augustine asserted that peaceful inaction in the face of a grave wrong that could be rectified only by violence would be a sin. Defense of oneself or the innocent could therefore be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate state authority:
They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."
But, say they, the wise man will wage Just Wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars.
No war is undertaken by a good state except on behalf of good faith or for safety.
According to J. Mark Mattox:
In terms of the traditional notion of jus ad bellum ... war is a coping mechanism for righteous sovereigns who would ensure that their violent international encounters are minimal, a reflection of the Divine Will to the greatest extent possible, and always justified. In terms of the traditional notion of jus in bello , war is a coping mechanism for righteous combatants who, by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible.
To summarize, Augustine explored the relationship between Christian charity and the use of force in greater philosophical depth than Saint Ambrose, though he ultimately affirmed many of the same principles. Augustine did not attempt to craft a systematic doctrine of just war, and his comments on it are scattered across his writing. Even so, the foundations of what later became the classical just war tradition can be clearly identified in his thought.
For Augustine, as for Ambrose, war could also be understood as analogous to a judicial process, in which the political authority uses war to punish those who commit injustice. Indeed, he compared military action to civil litigation seeking restitution or punitive redress. Since God was the ultimate judge, and there were Old Testament precedents for His ordering of wars against Israel's enemies and unbelievers, just war could also become holy war or religious war.
Several core just war principles emerge from Augustine's writing:
Legitimate authority: Only public authorities may wage war; private individuals have no right to initiate armed conflict.
Just cause: Defense of the community, protection of allies, or redress for wrongful acts are just causes for war, though Augustine also allowed for offensive action under certain circumstances, citing Moses’ expulsion of the Amorites after they denied Israel peaceful passage.
Right intention: Proper inner disposition is essential. A ruler or soldier must act with a mindset comparable to that of a Christian judge or executioner—firm yet guided by love and compassion. Actions motivated by revenge, wrath, or greed invalidate any claim to justice in war.
Finally, the ultimate goal of just war must be to establish peace.