On Remembrance Sunday when the nation remembers the War dead in two world wars and in post-war conflicts since 1945, I thought I would outline briefly why I think the concept of "Just War" (or Bellum iustum) is an acceptable ethical position for Christians to take, as opposed to outright pacifism that regards all military action as an evil to always be avoided no matter what the circumstances are.
The first thing to say is that for followers of Jesus, war is never an inherently good thing - it is always an evil, even though sometimes it may be the best choice and thereby an excusable one.
The way of Christ is the way of love and peace. The Christian ethic is to love our enemies, not wage war against them. And there are no exceptions. We are to love all our enemies, just as God loves all his enemies. So war is never good, it is always evil. And it is always a failure of politics and a sign of broken human relationships. There is never "glory" in war, only regret and sadness that "it came to this."
Now, this must be set alongside a second important point. This world is fallen in sin and imperfect. All human beings are fallen in sin and imperfect, and so all governments and nations are by extension fallen in sin and imperfect. This state of affairs means that sometimes we only have the choice between two courses of action that in themselves are evils. And in this situation, we should choose the lesser of two evils. This seems to me to be a pragmatic necessity in a fallen world. In such circumstances, the lesser evil is ethically excusable.
Just War theory is a particular application of this principle. It recognises that there are occasions when war is the lesser of two evils and it can be justified where it prevents a greater evil from taking place or where it will lead to greater evils being prevented.
Just War theory is often thought of as a Christian theory, which of course it is in one sense as many Christian thinkers have taught versions of Just War theory. However, its origins go back further than Christianity to Ancient Rome and philosophers such as Cicero. And it has also been advocated as a theory by non-Christian philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.
There are two main parts to Just War theory: Ius ad bellum - the right to go to war and Ius in bello - the right conduct of war. Some theorists have also added a third category: Ius post bellum - right actions after war is ended. They can be briefly outlined as follows.
Ius ad bellum – the right to go to war
1. Just cause: There must be a just reason for the war. War is never justified simply to punish a nation, or to gain territory or for economic gain. There must either be danger of great loss of innocent life or gross violations of basic human rights.
2. Comparative justice: There are always rights and wrongs on both sides of a conflict, but war can only be justified when the injustice suffered by one party is significantly greater than on the other side.
3. Competent authority: Only properly constituted governments or authorities can wage war.
4. Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose, not as a pretext to implement other intentions.
5. Probability of success: War should not be waged for a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.
6. Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.
7. Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the ius in bello principle of proportionality in how the war is conducted.
Ius in bello – right conduct in war
Once war has begun, Just War theory also has a bearing on how a conflict should be fought.
1. Distinction: We must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. And acts of war should only be directed towards enemy combatants. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction.
2. Proportionality: Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
3. Military Necessity: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.
4. Fair Treatment of Prisoners of War: Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them, mistreat them or kill them.
5. No use of means malum in se: Soldiers may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are simply considered as always evil in themselves. Examples would be mass rape, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled.
Ius post bellum – right post-war conduct
1. Just cause for termination: War should be terminated when there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.
2. Right intention: War should only continue until war aims are reached. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
3. Public declaration and authority: The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.
4. Discrimination: The victors must differentiate between political and military leaders, combatants and civilians. Punishment should be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.
5. Proportionality: Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community would not be permitted.
Conclusions
It is clear from these criteria that a war started, conducted and concluded in a completely just manner is a rare thing indeed in history and there have often been wrongs and excesses on all sides in historical and modern conflicts. It is also clear that while a conflict such as the Second World War was a "just war" overall (in that Nazism, Fascism and Japanese Militarism surely had to be stopped), there were parts of the conduct of the war that were not right.
Finally, I think it is important to distinguish between approving of a war or its conduct and supporting those who fought in it. Whatever view we take of military conflict we have to love and care for those who have served in the armed forces, and on this day, everyone should remember those who gave their lives that we might live in freedom.
