Fifth century Christians at large used to adhere to the ideal of traditional pacifism. Heywood (2003) defined Pacifism as “the principled rejection of war and all forms of violence as fundamentally evil” (p. 267). The pacifists hold a firm belief that no amount of logic or reason can ever justify war because a mutually exclusive relationship exists between justice and war. Back in the day, most Christians subscribe to pacifism not only as regards to how wars are viewed but also as a way of life in general. Accordingly, people were faced with a major dilemma of serving their own emperors honorably versus living a morally upright life.
In this time of doubts and confusion came St. Augustine and introduced the idea of a just war in his highly influential book the City of God, thereby earning his title as Father of the Just War theory in the Western tradition. It is important to note though that the concept of just war has already been offered in earlier writings during the Pre-Christian era; neither can we attribute full credit to St. Augustine of Hippo the Just War Theory that we know today. However, St. Augustine has made the most remarkable and lasting impression when he discussed the just war in his masterpiece that succeeding just war theorists who have contributed to the literature constantly referred to St. Augustine’s work in building their own stance.
The Just War theory was met with mixed reactions in the medieval times. Some viewed the just war theory as an answered prayer by serving as a moral guidance. In fact, “those knights, crusaders, of the Middle Ages – when they spoke of war, endeavoring to see if there might be a way to make wars and fighting less brutal – invariably cited the arguments of the Augustinian doctrine of just war” (Bigongiari, 1962, p. 353). The theory emphasized that “war is only justified as a defence against a real and serious attack on the common good” (Simpson, 1987, p. 76). On the contrary, there was this end to the spectrum where the theory was viewed as unethical and self-serving. Specifically, Walzer (2002) posited that “the theory of just war began in the service of the powers. Augustine replaced the radical refusal of Christian pacifists with the active ministry of the Christian soldier. Now pious Christians could fight on behalf of the worldly city, for the sake of imperial peace” provided that they meet all of the criteria and “they fight only for the sake of peace and without anger or lust” (p. 925). The function of the just war theory was reduced to a mere excuse in order to make war possible, especially in times of its necessity, by making what used to be morally unacceptable, acceptable. It became the middle ground between the Christian pacifists and the holy warriors by successfully legitimizing wars as a means to bring about peace and justice.
St. Thomas Aquinas has continued to develop what St. Augustine has started in the literature of just war later on. In his book Summa Theologicae, Aquinas offered a systematic way on how the just war can be applied and used effectively especially in military actions. There are three principal elements which compose a just war: the justice of war, the justice in war and the post-war responsibility and accountability. Furthermore, under the principal elements of just war lie several philosophical, religious and political criteria which ought to be fulfilled when entering a war, namely: just cause, comparative justice, right intention, competent authority, last resort, public declaration, reasonable probability of success, proportionality, and peace as the ultimate objective of war.
The first element, also known as the jus ad bellum, “defined the morally acceptable limits within which a sovereign could and even should go to war” (Johnson, 1973, p. 461). Mattox (2006) further discussed each of these principles, as follows: just cause includes the defence of the innocent against armed attack, the recovery of persons or property wrongly taken, or the punishment of evil; comparative justice requires that the claims of an aggrieved party be of such magnitude that the presumption against war is overridden; right intention demands that the internal motivation for engaging in war must be just in itself, evidence of which includes the pursuit of peace negotiations to avoid war and the avoidance of potentially unreasonable demands; competent authority is where the sole decision to go to war lies, be it a person or a body of persons generally recognized by virtue of position in the social framework with no political superior; last resort prohibits even the authority to declare war if there are any reasonable means to avoid it; public declaration, which can be in the form of ultimatum, necessitates the aggrieved state to set forth the reasons that impel it to war and demonstrate that all other means for peaceful resolution have been exhausted; proportionality states that the moral good expected to result from the war must exceed the amount of evil expected naturally and unavoidably to be entailed by war; and peace as the ultimate objective of war must be the end toward which the war is fought. (pp. 9-12)
The second element of the theory, or the jus in bello, on the other hand sets “limits to the conduct of war” (Johnson, 1973, p. 461). It comprises the principle of proportionality and discrimination. The former principle directs us to any act or demand that would make it more difficult for our enemies to reconcile with us some day. The latter states how directly intended attacks on noncombatants and nonmilitary targets are never permissible.
Finally, the third element jus post bellum establishes justice after the war. It lays down the responsibility and accountability of parties that engage in war.
Perhaps in the modern context wars are but a thing of the past, an account of events that we would rather stay in our termite-infested history books. We may be fortunate enough not to experience to live through the days when people’s breakfast and dinner are fear and chaos, but we are totally aware of what the repercussions are should the state leaders decide to engage in another war. War may have been a part of our history, but it is futile to argue that engaging in it is just another part of human nature. A man’s first instinct is survival; but what war brings, more often than not, is death. Not only did the soldiers but also the civilians, most of whom are of innocent children’s, paid the price of the government’s pursuit for land, resources and other selfish desires. This is probably why most Millennials think that there can only be just cause but never a just war, resulting in a contention as to the applicability and morality of the Just War Theory in the modern context.
As mentioned above, there is a general pacifist view towards war that it is often deemed as a useless ideal that humanity can never achieve. The principles under the theory are seemingly utopian that it makes one wonder if it really happens in this world full of violence. However, just like in the Medieval Period, the theory in fact plays a big role in influencing the military tactics of Western countries. It may be too good to be true but the Vietnam War attests to the possibility of a just war. Moreover, the prohibition of nuclear warfare is also influenced by the Just War tradition. Whether it must be abandoned is another question though.
There is an apparent danger that comes with the relevance and usefulness of the Just War theory. It may be effective in providing states with ethical standards when entering war, but it also results in moral licensing and increasing propensity of the occurrence of war. History has taught us that wars mislead us into thinking that we just have to sacrifice some of what we have and peace will finally be achieved, only to end up in such an endless cycle of retaliation and retribution. Hopefully, there will not be a necessity to revisit the Just War theory anytime soon.
References
Bigongiari, D. (1962). Untitled Essay. The Political Writings of St. Augustine.
Heywood, A. (2003). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, J. T. (1973). Toward Reconstructing the “Jus Ad Bellum", 57(4).
Mattox, J. (2006). Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Simpson, P. (1987). Journal of Applied Philosophy, 4(2).
Walzer, M. (2002). The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success). Social Research: An International Quarterly, 69(4).
