Just War Theory
(2) Just War Theory
The body of thought (arising primarily out of the Western Christian tradition) which addresses
the questions of …
1. Jus ad bellum: When is it justifiable to go to war?
2. Jus in bello: What actions are permissible during war?
3. Jus post bellum: What is required after the war to ensure justice?
Just war tradition: 2000-year-old conversation about the legitimacy of war, which provides a
justificatory framework, a meaningful language that soldiers and politicians use to legitimise their
actions and that friends, foes and bystanders alike use to evaluate those claims (Bellamy, 2006)
Some view just war theory as a middle ground between the extremes of pacifism (denying that war
can be just) and holy war/realism (which sees it as a positive good)
Purpose of Just War Theory
● Designed to limit the use of violence, or
● Permissive → providing a means of overcoming the inherent bias in Christianity against
violence
The just war theory combines different ways of thinking about ethics, including:
● Absolute rules (following strict principles, like in deontological ethics)
● Consequences (considering the outcomes of actions, like in consequentialism)
● Virtue ethics (focusing on good character traits)
● Rights (emphasising people's rights)
and also considers political judgement and the need for certain actions
2.1 Christian History and the Just War Theory
Both the old and new testament gives no clear cut answers towards violence:
‘Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword' (Matthew 26:52)
vs
‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a
sword' (Matthew 10:34)
Additionally, while the New Testament preaches love and warns against hate, it nowhere prohibits
violence as a means of distributing justice
Common interpretation of Christian history is to see a sharp divide between the eras before and after
the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine
● Prior to Constantine’s conversion, the Christian community is seen as pacifist in orientation
● Afterwords, it is seen as accepting the need for war as a means of protecting the Empire and
the church
,At the time, many Christians expected the world to end in the near future and hence wished to keep
themselves morally pure, but were happy to stand behind the protective wall of the pagan Roman
army. And while many objected to service in the army, this was often not because of a principled
objection to violence but because soldiers were required to recognize the Emperor as a God.
Once Christianity became the majority and governed the empire, difficult decisions on employing
violence had to be made
● The way out of this was reversing the moral obligation to love their fellow man → rather than
stressing on not harming others, it now meant not allowing harm to be done to others
According to Augustine, peace was not the absence of war, but the tranquillity of order
→ War was a lesser evil to achieve peace
Ie A humanitarian intervention fought to protect others is just, whereas a war fought for
self-defence (because of its selfish intention) is not
Peace of God movement: a movement to protect ecclesiastical property and women, priests, pilgrims,
merchants, and other noncombatants from violence
Truce of God movement: sought to restrict the days on which fighting could take place
Dominican monk Raymond of Penafort’s Just War Theory
5 conditions are required for a war to be just, namely…
1. Person (persona): must be a secular, for whom it is permitted to shed blood, and not a cleric
2. Object (res): object of war must be recovery of property and the defence of the fatherland
3. Cause (causa): the war be fought out of necessity, so that peace is achieved by the fighting
4. State of mind (animus): not because of hatred, revenge, or greed, but because of piety,
justice, and obedience
5. Authority (autoritas): war be waged by the authority of the church
2.2 Doctrine of Double Effect
Implies that collateral damage is permissible as long as the target is a legitimate one and the
damage is proportionate to the military value of the target → controversial
Aquinas’ Just War Theory
In order for war to be just, 3 things are required:
1. Authority of the prince by whose command the war is to be waged
2. A just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because
they deserve it on account of some fault
3. It is necessary that those waging war should have a rightful intention, so that they intend
the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil
Aquinas does introduce the doctrine of double effect: nothing hinders an act from having two effects,
only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention
→ Moral acts get their character in accordance with what is intended
Eg In the case of self-defence, there are two effects: saving your own life and killing the
attacker. Since the main goal is to protect yourself, this action is not wrong because it's natural
to want to stay alive. However, even if the intention is good, the action can become wrong if
the force used is excessive and goes beyond what's necessary for self-defence.
,Note the difference between Aquinas’ doctrine and Augustine’s that said self-defence was not
justifiable but defence of others was
Modification of the doctrine
● Michael Walzer: in addition to intending only the primary effect, the actor, being aware of the
secondary effect, must seek to minimise it, if necessary accepting costs to himself in the
process
Just war theory as permissive: Just war theory as restricting:
'Given that the basic presumption of just-war 'Catholic teaching begins in every case with a
traditions is against injustice and in favour of presumption against war' (The Challenge of
the protection of the innocent, in principle there Peace)
could be a just intervention in domestic injustice
in another nation, an aggressive just war, a war
of liberation' (Ramsey)
Fundamental differences of just war theory undermines its usefulness as a framework for discussion.
Consider, could war be just on both sides? → objectively, no but subjectively, both sides could very
well believe their cause is just and excused for so thinking
‘Where there is provable ignorance either of fact or of law, the war itself may be just in itself for the
side which has true justice on its side, and also just for the other side, because they wage war in good
faith and are hence excused from sin ... In such situations the subjects on both sides are justified in
fighting’
Implications of the above conclusion:
● One must accept a moral equality of soldiers: both sides must follow the same rules
● We should keep the rules about when it's justifiable to start a war (ius ad bellum) and the rules
about how to behave in war (ius in bello) separate
Legalism: sought to replace the weak and corrupt church authority with a new, fair, and secular system
that everyone could agree on → create a set of international laws that would be accepted by different
political groups
, Modern manifestation of Just War Theory
1. Ius ad Bellum
a. Just cause → avenging injuries? National self-defence? Protecting innocent and
human rights?
b. Aim of peace
c. Right intention: one must do the right thing for the right reasons
d. Legitimate authority → individuals do not possess the authority to wage war, only
states do (and under modern law, authority of states is limited by UN)
e. Public declaration of war
f. Reasonable chance of success
g. Proportionality: a war must do more good than harm for it to be considered just
h. Last resort: one must exhaust all reasonable methods of achieving the desired end
by peaceful means before one wages war
i. Comparative justice: no state should assume it has perfect or complete justice on its
side. Every side in a conflict should recognize that their cause, even if just, has its
limits → they should only use limited means and not pursue their goals in an
extreme or excessive way.
2. Ius in Bello
a. Discrimination or Non-Combatant Immunity: one may not deliberately target the
innocent (ie non-combatant)
b. Proportionality: the amount of damage done when carrying out an attack must be
proportionate to the military value of the target
Carl Ficarotta believes that 'the just war framework is extraordinarily flexible in what it can seem to
justify ... the framework and its language are particularly amenable to abuse ... it does not so much
reduce the incidence of war but likely makes it more common and moreover seemingly morally
acceptable.'
Hence, the late 20th century witnessed a shift away from just war thinking towards a morality of
peacemaking → emphasis of finding a non-violent solution to political differences
The Challenge of Peace stated that while not denying that a war could in theory be just, the world
faced 'ferocious new means of warfare threatening savagery surpassing that of the past' and concluded
that, 'Peacemaking is not an optional commitment. It is a requirement of our faith ... with the massive
weaponry of the present, war is no longer viable'
Orend’s addition if ius post bellum
6 criteria should govern justice after war:
1. Proportionality and publicity: the peace settlement should be both measured and
reasonable, as well as publicly proclaimed
2. Rights vindication: the settlement should secure those basic rights whose violation
triggered the justified war
3. Discrimination: civilians are entitled to reasonable immunity from punitive postwar
measures
4. Punishment: proportionate punishment must be meted out, both to leaders guilty of rights
violations and to soldiers of both sides guilty of war crimes
5. Compensation: financial restitution should be mandated, subject to both proportionality and
discrimination
6. Rehabilitation: decrepit institutions in an aggressor regime' should be reformed
(2) Just War Theory
The body of thought (arising primarily out of the Western Christian tradition) which addresses
the questions of …
1. Jus ad bellum: When is it justifiable to go to war?
2. Jus in bello: What actions are permissible during war?
3. Jus post bellum: What is required after the war to ensure justice?
Just war tradition: 2000-year-old conversation about the legitimacy of war, which provides a
justificatory framework, a meaningful language that soldiers and politicians use to legitimise their
actions and that friends, foes and bystanders alike use to evaluate those claims (Bellamy, 2006)
Some view just war theory as a middle ground between the extremes of pacifism (denying that war
can be just) and holy war/realism (which sees it as a positive good)
Purpose of Just War Theory
● Designed to limit the use of violence, or
● Permissive → providing a means of overcoming the inherent bias in Christianity against
violence
The just war theory combines different ways of thinking about ethics, including:
● Absolute rules (following strict principles, like in deontological ethics)
● Consequences (considering the outcomes of actions, like in consequentialism)
● Virtue ethics (focusing on good character traits)
● Rights (emphasising people's rights)
and also considers political judgement and the need for certain actions
2.1 Christian History and the Just War Theory
Both the old and new testament gives no clear cut answers towards violence:
‘Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword' (Matthew 26:52)
vs
‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a
sword' (Matthew 10:34)
Additionally, while the New Testament preaches love and warns against hate, it nowhere prohibits
violence as a means of distributing justice
Common interpretation of Christian history is to see a sharp divide between the eras before and after
the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine
● Prior to Constantine’s conversion, the Christian community is seen as pacifist in orientation
● Afterwords, it is seen as accepting the need for war as a means of protecting the Empire and
the church
,At the time, many Christians expected the world to end in the near future and hence wished to keep
themselves morally pure, but were happy to stand behind the protective wall of the pagan Roman
army. And while many objected to service in the army, this was often not because of a principled
objection to violence but because soldiers were required to recognize the Emperor as a God.
Once Christianity became the majority and governed the empire, difficult decisions on employing
violence had to be made
● The way out of this was reversing the moral obligation to love their fellow man → rather than
stressing on not harming others, it now meant not allowing harm to be done to others
According to Augustine, peace was not the absence of war, but the tranquillity of order
→ War was a lesser evil to achieve peace
Ie A humanitarian intervention fought to protect others is just, whereas a war fought for
self-defence (because of its selfish intention) is not
Peace of God movement: a movement to protect ecclesiastical property and women, priests, pilgrims,
merchants, and other noncombatants from violence
Truce of God movement: sought to restrict the days on which fighting could take place
Dominican monk Raymond of Penafort’s Just War Theory
5 conditions are required for a war to be just, namely…
1. Person (persona): must be a secular, for whom it is permitted to shed blood, and not a cleric
2. Object (res): object of war must be recovery of property and the defence of the fatherland
3. Cause (causa): the war be fought out of necessity, so that peace is achieved by the fighting
4. State of mind (animus): not because of hatred, revenge, or greed, but because of piety,
justice, and obedience
5. Authority (autoritas): war be waged by the authority of the church
2.2 Doctrine of Double Effect
Implies that collateral damage is permissible as long as the target is a legitimate one and the
damage is proportionate to the military value of the target → controversial
Aquinas’ Just War Theory
In order for war to be just, 3 things are required:
1. Authority of the prince by whose command the war is to be waged
2. A just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because
they deserve it on account of some fault
3. It is necessary that those waging war should have a rightful intention, so that they intend
the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil
Aquinas does introduce the doctrine of double effect: nothing hinders an act from having two effects,
only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention
→ Moral acts get their character in accordance with what is intended
Eg In the case of self-defence, there are two effects: saving your own life and killing the
attacker. Since the main goal is to protect yourself, this action is not wrong because it's natural
to want to stay alive. However, even if the intention is good, the action can become wrong if
the force used is excessive and goes beyond what's necessary for self-defence.
,Note the difference between Aquinas’ doctrine and Augustine’s that said self-defence was not
justifiable but defence of others was
Modification of the doctrine
● Michael Walzer: in addition to intending only the primary effect, the actor, being aware of the
secondary effect, must seek to minimise it, if necessary accepting costs to himself in the
process
Just war theory as permissive: Just war theory as restricting:
'Given that the basic presumption of just-war 'Catholic teaching begins in every case with a
traditions is against injustice and in favour of presumption against war' (The Challenge of
the protection of the innocent, in principle there Peace)
could be a just intervention in domestic injustice
in another nation, an aggressive just war, a war
of liberation' (Ramsey)
Fundamental differences of just war theory undermines its usefulness as a framework for discussion.
Consider, could war be just on both sides? → objectively, no but subjectively, both sides could very
well believe their cause is just and excused for so thinking
‘Where there is provable ignorance either of fact or of law, the war itself may be just in itself for the
side which has true justice on its side, and also just for the other side, because they wage war in good
faith and are hence excused from sin ... In such situations the subjects on both sides are justified in
fighting’
Implications of the above conclusion:
● One must accept a moral equality of soldiers: both sides must follow the same rules
● We should keep the rules about when it's justifiable to start a war (ius ad bellum) and the rules
about how to behave in war (ius in bello) separate
Legalism: sought to replace the weak and corrupt church authority with a new, fair, and secular system
that everyone could agree on → create a set of international laws that would be accepted by different
political groups
, Modern manifestation of Just War Theory
1. Ius ad Bellum
a. Just cause → avenging injuries? National self-defence? Protecting innocent and
human rights?
b. Aim of peace
c. Right intention: one must do the right thing for the right reasons
d. Legitimate authority → individuals do not possess the authority to wage war, only
states do (and under modern law, authority of states is limited by UN)
e. Public declaration of war
f. Reasonable chance of success
g. Proportionality: a war must do more good than harm for it to be considered just
h. Last resort: one must exhaust all reasonable methods of achieving the desired end
by peaceful means before one wages war
i. Comparative justice: no state should assume it has perfect or complete justice on its
side. Every side in a conflict should recognize that their cause, even if just, has its
limits → they should only use limited means and not pursue their goals in an
extreme or excessive way.
2. Ius in Bello
a. Discrimination or Non-Combatant Immunity: one may not deliberately target the
innocent (ie non-combatant)
b. Proportionality: the amount of damage done when carrying out an attack must be
proportionate to the military value of the target
Carl Ficarotta believes that 'the just war framework is extraordinarily flexible in what it can seem to
justify ... the framework and its language are particularly amenable to abuse ... it does not so much
reduce the incidence of war but likely makes it more common and moreover seemingly morally
acceptable.'
Hence, the late 20th century witnessed a shift away from just war thinking towards a morality of
peacemaking → emphasis of finding a non-violent solution to political differences
The Challenge of Peace stated that while not denying that a war could in theory be just, the world
faced 'ferocious new means of warfare threatening savagery surpassing that of the past' and concluded
that, 'Peacemaking is not an optional commitment. It is a requirement of our faith ... with the massive
weaponry of the present, war is no longer viable'
Orend’s addition if ius post bellum
6 criteria should govern justice after war:
1. Proportionality and publicity: the peace settlement should be both measured and
reasonable, as well as publicly proclaimed
2. Rights vindication: the settlement should secure those basic rights whose violation
triggered the justified war
3. Discrimination: civilians are entitled to reasonable immunity from punitive postwar
measures
4. Punishment: proportionate punishment must be meted out, both to leaders guilty of rights
violations and to soldiers of both sides guilty of war crimes
5. Compensation: financial restitution should be mandated, subject to both proportionality and
discrimination
6. Rehabilitation: decrepit institutions in an aggressor regime' should be reformed
