Tuesday, 07 July 2009

  • Just War Theory; What Is It?

    Introduction
    All Christians desire to fight injustice, bring about peace, and diminish the amount of pain in the fallen world we live in. Throughout history there have been differing ideas about how the Church is to achieve these goals. Many great men and women have asked what is permissible and what is inexcusable for the Church in regards to achieving these goals. Dietrich Bonhoeffer struggled greatly with this issue. He wrote about peaceful living and loving enemies but later found his self (apologetically) involved in a (failed) plot to kill Hitler. One idea regarding how to deal with injustice, predominantly dealing with war and violent conflicts, is called the just war theory.

    The just war theory is somewhat of a mystery to many Christians even though a large number of believers would choose the stance over nonviolence/pacifism at first mention. Just war theory attempts 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. Just war is not the process of justifying war or an excuse to support engaging in any war that one may feel is just or even unavoidable.

    History of Just War Theory
    Saint Augustine (354-430 A.D.) is said to be the author of what is now called the “just war theory.” Some attribute partial credit to Saint Thomas Aquinas as well. Augustine believed that Christians had no right to defend themselves from violence. He was the first theologian to question the obligation of Christian love to use violence in defending the innocent against evil. Why it took several hundred years after the resurrection of Christ for a theologian to pose this question is a mystery (especially since the Church was a nonviolent group up until this point) but chances are it can be accredited to Augustine’s stance being developed a good time after the conversion of Emperor Constantine (d. 337). It’s also worth noting that Augustine drew his stance largely from Stoic just war principles and men who were not followers of Jesus Christ.

    Many have associated just war theory with holy wars or crusades and some want to associate the theory with machismo affairs or political wars as well but all these associations are short-sighted as well as false. Just war theory is a severely complex ethical discipline.

    If you think pacifism is a hard line, try just war theory” –Stanley Hauerwas.

    The Just War Theory
    • Just war criteria presuppose that no Christian person should be involved in any war unless it meets all or at least most of the criteria.
    • Just war theory assumes that initiating war is generally a crime and that only one party involved may be justified and it is most often not the aggressor. Revolutions are never considered just wars.
    • People are not justified by the theory; instead their actions are relatively justified by it.
    • Just war theory anticipates situations where victory cannot be gained without using indefensible means, and renounces them, accepting defeat as an honorable outcome.

    The Criteria:
    1. The war must have a just cause (the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress evil injury of the innocent).
    2. It must be waged by a legitimate authority (even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. Many would claim attendance of religious authority as mandatory).
    3. It must be formally declared (tactics not consisting of honesty and fair warning concerning coming force prior to attack on the innocent are forbidden).
    4. It must be fought with a peaceful intention (the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought).
    5. It must be a last resort (all non-violent options must be completely exhausted before the use of force. Often, this is listed as the first piece of criteria).
    6. There must be a reasonable hope of success (all deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. This must include a probable degree of achieving whatever just goal is made necessary by point one).
    7. The means used must possess proportionality to the end sought (states are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered).

    Three additional conditions must be met regarding the condition for the permissible conduct of war:
    1. Noncombatants must be given immunity (Civilians are never permissible targets of war and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. This includes the possibility of sacrificing hundreds of soldiers for the sake of one noncombatant and not dropping bombs to end a war more quickly so a greater number of people can be saved via the involuntary sacrifice of noncombatants).
    2. Prisoners must be treated humanely.
    3. International treaties and conventions must be honored (even if the opposing side will not submit to international treaties or conventions. The just warrior must fight justly according to all laws).

    Obviously, many questions concerning the specifics of the above terms and statements remain. As a result, the just war theory is not as concrete as one would hope. If we look at the criteria under the lens of scripture and in the practice of prayer our answers will come easier.

    Some of the questions that spring from the soil of this criteria are “What must be voiced to the opposition when action is formally declared,” “what defines reasonable hope for success,” and “how can we measure the appropriate amount of force needed to obtain the limited object proposed efficiently?” More are addressed below in the category titled Just War Questions for Today.

    Augustine’s Position
    In the late 300’s there was no concept of “Christian” nations like today. Rome was the only state consisting of leadership that claimed to be Christian. Rome had recently altered its law drastically from outlawing the proclamation of Christ and the practice of Christ-like living to enforcing it upon all military participants. This is due to the conversion of Emperor Constantine (estimated 313). There was toleration for civilians to practice Christian living for the first time in history. In Saint Augustine’s view, Rome was upholding G-D’s order in the world.

    Augustine maintained that Christians should fight for the sake of the Roman nation because of the Christian leadership in Rome. For him, Christians could only fight for Rome, and that was obvious, because their enemies were always enemies not only of the Roman nation, but of the peace and order Rome sought to uphold. Augustine’s interpretation of Romans 13 led him to believe that Christians had a due loyalty to Rome and thus were not only allowed to participate in military service but were obligated to do so. The Christians in Corinth and Egypt were not held to the same standard since their state was not following the right god.

    Augustine was essentially attempting to formulate a system which would have allowed Christians to have a say in the operations of the one “Christian” power in the world. Augustine was not attempting to actually form what has become the “just war theory.” The theologian was never attempting to justify war (for anyone except Rome) or baptize the use of violence for the sake of Christ Jesus (except through Rome). A fair modern comparison would be Rick Warren declaring that war is unjust except when the United States is involved to uphold G-D’s order and that all Christians would do well to join the military.

    It must be noted that Augustine’s position is not shared by those who came before him. Tatian once said “I do not wish to be king… I reject military service.” Hippolytus proclaimed, “A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate who wears the purple must resign or be rejected. If an applicant or a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.” The fact that these men and their quotes predate the conversion of Emperor Constantine has no bearing on the dissonance between Augustine’s proclamations and those of his brothers of faith who clung to phrases such as, “Christians are not allowed to correct with violence” (said by Clement of Alexandria).

    Despite Augustine’s difference in opinion with previous Christians concerning war and support of the state he held many similar beliefs. Augustine never supported the idea of Christians using violence in personal matters such as self-defense or to defend persons in trouble. For instance, his stance does not argue for a Christian to fight off a mugger or rapist with violence to defend the innocent victim. We must remember the context of the just war theory and not try to apply it where it was never meant to be applied.

    Just War Questions for Today
    It is abundantly clear (from government systems to the earth’s scientifically accepted celestial location) that the world of 2009 is not the same as the world Augustine lived in. With historical events such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King’s slow and nonviolent victories over their oppressors, one must ask the question “what does it look like to know all nonviolent means for resolution have been exhausted?” Exhausting all nonviolent means can take an immeasurable and unpredictable amount of time. How do we react within a given time limit according to just war theory? Not only that but what does exhausting all nonviolent means look like on an international scale?

    Along with these questions we must also ask “what do peaceful intentions look like and how are they put into practical terms during times of international conflict?” If the opposition is bringing evil upon the innocent without violent or malicious means then how does one react according to the criteria? What forms of weaponry are permissible by the criteria? Who is authorized to answer these questions?

    The Roman Catholic Church, and many other religious factions, maintain the just war theory as part of their official doctrine. Anyone who makes just war theory part of their doctrine must prescribe to the whole of theory otherwise the abandon the very framework of it. In this context we have to ask “who does the Catholic church deem as a true form of authority” (if it were solely the government of each local congregation there would be great conflict), “what constitutes humane treatment of prisoners,” and “what constitutes a truly just war?”

    One of the greatest complications with just war theory is the question of “what defines an innocent victim?” This question, like many others, becomes far more complicated when put into international terms. These questions help illustrate the strictness of the theory and how the criteria severely delimit the possibilities in war for those who adhere to it.

    Facts Regarding Just War Theory
    No authoritative Christian body has ever, prior to the commencement of fighting, decreed that one side, or the other is justified in warfare on the basis of just war criteria. –Walter Wink

    WWII has been almost universally regarded by the victors as a “just war.” But no church body, before or at any time during that war, examined it in the light of just war criteria. John Courtney Murray, the leading Roman Catholic interpreter of just war theory at the time, admitted that no sustained criticism of World War II was made before or during that war by Catholic ethicists. “The traditional doctrine was irrelevant during World War II.” –Walter Wink

    Questions
    Do you think just war theory could be adopted by any government today?
    Do you believe these criteria to be fair and adequate?
    Have you adopted just war theory as a part of your doctrine?

    Resources:
    Engaging the Powers by Walter Wink
    Speak Up for Just War or Pacifism
    by Paul Ramsey and Stanley Hauerwas
    The Moral Vision of the New Testament
    by Richard B. Hays
    Beyond Just War and Pacifism
    by Gene Sharp
    Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace
    by Roland Bainton
    Principles of Just War
    by Vincent Ferraro
    Doing Right by David W. Gill
    Speak Truth to Power by the American Friends Service Committee
    JustWarTheory.com

Comments (15)

  • SirNickDon
    Good stuff on Augustine's perspective. While there are many things I disagree with Augustine on, there are far more I disagree with his supporters on. I think we have been deeply misreading Augustine for some time now. I think Bill Cavanaugh is doing a good job helping to correct that.

    I think the questions are strong. An honest just-war thinker will have to recognize that America's wars have so far all been unjust by their own criteria, either ad bello or in bellum. The just-war theorist also has to deal with the fact that the church seems unable or unwilling to act as a restraint on any nation when it is clearly in breach of the just-war sanctions.

    What can the just-warrior do in this context?

    If I could rec this twice, I would.
  • Theophilus166
    1. Noncombatants must be given immunity (Civilians are never permissible targets of war and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. This includes the possibility of sacrificing hundreds of soldiers for the sake of one noncombatant and not dropping bombs to end a war more quickly so a greater number of people can be saved via the involuntary sacrifice of noncombatants).


    Yet our argument for dropping the atomic bomb on the noncombatants in Japan was to save the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers in an armed invasion.
  • SirNickDon

    @Theophilus166 - 

    I'm convinced that WWII is not justifiable by just-war standards. The A-bomb is one reason, the general strategy of aerial bombardment (as well as the fire-bombing of Dresden, etc.,) is another, and the goal of unconditional surrender is a third. But when people say WWII is an example of a justified war, I'm pretty sure they're not thinking of just-war, but of a crusade. By the standards of crusade, WWII looks pretty good. There's the ultimate evil to fight against, an appeal to a religious motivation (to save God's chosen people), etc. But nobody wants to admit that they support a crusade, because we're all good secular liberals, even in the church.
  • templestream

    I believe Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a good and unique example of why it's difficult to apply a set of man made rules to all of history. I believe it would be more appropriate to study the scriptures themselves if there is going to be a serious basis for justifying a specific military conflict today for Christians to follow. Augustine's writings may be a springboard but they aren't scripture and were, as you wrote, written at a different time and under under very unique circumstances.


    One of the most inmteresting situations was the American Revolutionary War. America had just experienced the Great Awakening beginning in the 1730's and the Revolution began with this as a background, which to me is very interesting. The revolutionaries believed they were fighting a just war, but as Nic pointed out, they didn't exactly try to follow all of Augistine's points. I would be interested to know people's opinions on that. Here are some oinion's from the period of the Revolutionary War:


    Reverend Jacob Duché stated: "Inasmuch as all rulers are in fact the servants of the public and appointed for no other purpose than to be “a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well” [c.f., Rom. 13:3], whenever this Divine order is inverted – whenever these rulers abuse their sacred trust by unrighteous attempts to injure, oppress, and enslave those very persons from whom alone, under God, their power is derived – does not humanity, does not reason, does not Scripture, call upon the man, the citizen, the Christian of such a community to “stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ….hath made them free!” [Galatians 5:1]"


    John Quincy Adams stated: [T]here was no anarchy. . . . [T]he people of the North American union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God (which they all) and by the laws of the Gospel (which they nearly all) acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. 15 (emphasis added)


    The famous command to the Lexington Minutemen, “Don’t fire unless fired upon!” was the standard all engagements. "Yet, having been fired upon without having broken any law, the Americans believed they had a Biblical right to self-defense. In fact, the Rev. Peter Powers, in a famous sermon he preached in front of the Vermont Legislature in 1778, 19 specifically noted that America had “taken up arms in its own defense” 20 – that she had no initiated the conflict but was only defending herself after being attacked."


    Founding Father James Wilson (a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution, and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court) affirmed:



    The defense of one’s self . . . is not, nor can it be, abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man. It is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those to whom he bears a peculiar relation – of his wife, of his parent, of his child. . . . As a man is justified in defending, so he is justified in retaking his property. . . . Man does not exist for the sake of government, but government is instituted for the sake of man. 22


    Some food for thought...from this link

  • Lynnjynh9315
    1. Civilians are never permissible targets of war.
    2. Prisoners must be treated humanely.

    These are contradictions. Many times, the most humane act IS to kill someone. Furthermore, you must understand the cultural differences with your enemies. Mercy, in many cultures, is a high insult and a fate worse than death- basically meaning that letting them live is- by far- the crueler act. ... think about it.
  • TheGreatBout

    @Lynnjynh9315 Just War Theory derives from a Christian standpoint/worldview (though it was developed with stoic influences). That must be the accepted foundation for the theory because it IS the foundation.

    I'm not sure how those are contradictions. Prisoners and civilians are different. If you refuse to drop bombs that kill civilians and also have prisoners but treat them well, how do you contradict yourself? I think what you present would get into the issue of "should you kill someone to love them?" That's an entirely different discussion. Maybe we should save that for a euthanasia post? :)

    As it was developed and stands, those are part of the criteria. Whether they are contradictions or not, that's the way it is.

  • Lynnjynh9315
  • soy_esteban
    "All Christians desire to fight injustice, bring about peace, and diminish the amount of pain in the fallen world we live in."
    If only this were so.

    "Revolutions are never considered just wars."
    I never knew that. How convenient for those already in power to have it that way. Pays to have friends in the right places, I suppose.

    "Do you think just war theory could be adopted by any government today?"
    No. But I'll let your good friend Stanley Hauerwas tell you about that. Check out this article entitled "Why War is a Moral Necessity for America or How Realistic Is Realism?" I was planning on writing a blog summary of it, but if you get to it first, by all means, go for it.
  • templestream

    @soy_esteban - "Revolutions are never considered just wars." Oh really?...When the Jews were being oppressed by Antiochus  Epiphanes, there was great blasphemy in the temple and great injustice in general. Judas Maccabeus led a revolt against overwhelming odds and won.. This victory and the miracle of the burning lamps became the holiday of Hanukkah.   John chapter 8 describes how Jesus attended the celebration and used it as an occasion to describe himself as the light of the world. He did not denounce the holiday or revolution but took part in the festival. Judas Maccabeus is considered on of the greatest heroes of Israel.

  • soy_esteban

    @templestream - 

    I just quoted the post.
  • TheGreatBout

    @templestream Jesus didn't follow Just War Theory and neither did any of his ancestors.

  • templestream

    @TheGreatBout - Agreed, He lived a few centuries before Augustine. Somehow, I think if they lived at the same time Augustine would have been more interested in Jesus' views on the subject rather than the other way around.

  • TheGreatBout
  • templestream

    @TheGreatBout - What do think personally of the American Revolution, irrrespective of Augustine. Do you believe it was just or unjust?

  • TheGreatBout

    @templestream Unjust. I'm far more conservative than Augustine when it comes to war and violence.

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.

Who recommended?

Who gave the eProps?