Just War, As It Was and Is

[gilliam]

*James Turner Johnson *The just war tradition came into being during the Middle Ages as a way of thinking about the right use of force in the context of responsible government of the political community. With deep roots in both ancient Israel and classical Greek and Roman political thought and practice, the origins of a specifically Christian just war concept first appeared in the thought of Augustine. A systematic just war theory came only some time later, beginning with Gratian’s Decretum in the middle of the twelfth century, maturing through the work of two generations of successors, the Decretists and the Decretalists, and taking theological form in the work of Thomas Aquinas and others in the latter part of the thirteenth century. Later in the Middle Ages, and particularly during the era of the Hundred Years War, this canonical and theological conception of just war was further elaborated by incorporation of ideas, customs, and practices from the chivalric code and the experience of war, from renewed attention to Roman law, especially the jus gentium, and from the developing experience of government.

read the rest.

James Turner Johnson *is Professor of Religion at Rutgers University and author of several books on the historical development and contemporary use of the just war tradition, including *Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War *(1981)**and *Morality and Contemporary Warfare (1999).

 

[gilliam]

(also posted in the News forum, in case anyone wants to comment on current events, do it there)

Just War, As It Was and Is

*James Turner Johnson *The just war tradition came into being during the Middle Ages as a way of thinking about the right use of force in the context of responsible government of the political community. With deep roots in both ancient Israel and classical Greek and Roman political thought and practice, the origins of a specifically Christian just war concept first appeared in the thought of Augustine. A systematic just war theory came only some time later, beginning with Gratian’s Decretum in the middle of the twelfth century, maturing through the work of two generations of successors, the Decretists and the Decretalists, and taking theological form in the work of Thomas Aquinas and others in the latter part of the thirteenth century. Later in the Middle Ages, and particularly during the era of the Hundred Years War, this canonical and theological conception of just war was further elaborated by incorporation of ideas, customs, and practices from the chivalric code and the experience of war, from renewed attention to Roman law, especially the jus gentium, and from the developing experience of government.

read the rest.

James Turner Johnson *is Professor of Religion at Rutgers University and author of several books on the historical development and contemporary use of the just war tradition, including *Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War *(1981)**and *Morality and Contemporary Warfare (1999).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I do not believe in the Just War Theory. This is something that the Latin Church uses that really doesn’t have an expression in the Byzantine Tradition.

I do not think any War can be Just, but that doesn’t mean that I am against all wars. There are times that war is the only way to solve somethings.

 

[Matt25]

A Contemporary Description * When Augustine discussed just-war principles, he sought to establish criteria to determine whether or not Christians could morally participate in a war… the doctrine today is generally applied to evaluate the justification of the war itself… * *The dictates of conscience, moral reasoning, and common sense agree that indiscriminate killing of persons is wrong and cannot be tolerated. Any taking of human life without moral justification is murder; it is intrinsically wrong. The only conditions that justify killing are those necessary for the protection of human life, that is, defense of self and others. *

*Even when justified, however, killing is still subject to moral restrictions and should be avoided if possible. Only the amount of force necessary to restrain aggression is legitimate; and while exercising force, caution must be taken to protect innocent bystanders…
*

*Similarly, the just-war criteria seeks to determine under what conditions and by what means war is morally justifiable. The doctrine begins with the assumption that the taking of human life even in war is wrong, that it is murder, unless it conforms to the principles of justice. Essentially, war is justifiable only if conducted for defensive purposes. Disproportionate use of force or indiscriminate killing in war is morally wrong. If we return to the thought of Augustine for a moment, we see that just-war doctrine attempts to hold together two claims for those with national responsibility; to protect the lives of citizens through national security and the responsibility to use national security forces morally. *

** To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime;
it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes,
in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
~ Judgement of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg**

http://home.earthlink.net/~moral.outrage/flame_2.gif Just War Tradition

The result of 1600 years of evolving tradition is a fairly complex set of criteria that govern both moral justifications for waging war (jus ad bellum) and moral conduct once engaged in war (jus in bello). While just war proponents agree upon the criteria, there is often considerable variation in how the principles themselves are defined, not to mention how they are applied to particular cases. These principles may be roughly summarized as follows: Jus ad bellum

• Legitimate authority. Private individuals and groups are not permitted to take up arms against others, however justified their cause may appear. Only governments—those who have been entrusted with the public good—may wage war, and they must do it openly and legally.
• Just cause. A government may wage war in self-defense, in defense of another nation, to protect innocents or to regain something wrongfully taken. The desire for personal glory or revenge, or to impose tyrannical rule, is never an acceptable cause for waging war.
• Right intention. The ultimate end of a government in waging war must be to establish peace, rather than to use a “just war” as a pretext for its own gain.
• Last resort. A governing authority must reasonably exhaust all other diplomatic and non-military options for securing peace before resorting to force.
• Reasonable chance of success. A government may not resort to war unless its prospects for success are good. In this way, lives will not be needlessly wasted in the pursuit of a hopeless cause.
• Proportionality. A government must respond to aggression with force only when the effects of its defensive actions do not exceed the damage done by the aggression itself.

Jus in bello

• Noncombatant immunity. An authority waging war is morally obligated to seek to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. While civilians unfortunately may sometimes come in harm’s way, a government may never deliberately target them.
• Proportionate means. This criterion pertains to specific tactics of warfare and seeks to restrict unnecessary use of force. It is intended to ensure that the military means used to achieve certain goals and goods are commensurate with their value, particularly when compared to the loss of life and destruction that could also occur.

home.earthlink.net/~moral.outrage/mo_just_war.html

 

[gilliam]

A Contemporary Description When Augustine discussed just-war principles, he sought to establish criteria to determine whether or not Christians could morally participate in a war… the doctrine today is generally applied to evaluate the justification of the war itself…

followed the link, but couldn’t figure out the author.

In fact, the linked page was very confusing to figure out who was saying what.

 

[John_TE]

Both Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice explaining that Iraq is not a threat in early 2001.

thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1083862.htm

Powell: Some Iraq testimony “not solid.”

cnn.com/2004/US/04/03/powell.iraq/index.html

The CIA caved under pressure.

time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101040614-646366,00.html

Iraq Survey Group formally ends WMD hunt

isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=10554

INTERVENTION BY H.E. MSGR GIOVANNI LAJOLO
SECRETARY FOR RELATIONS WITH STATES
AT THE GENERAL DEBATE OF THE 59TH SESSION
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2004/documents/rc_seg-st_20040929_lajolo-un_en.html

 

[John_TE]

"Then there is the Iraqi conflict. The position of the Holy See concerning the military action of 2002-2003 is well known. Everyone can see that it did not lead to a safer world either inside or outside Iraq" ~H.E. Msgr Giovanni Lajolo, Secretary for Relations with States (speaking for the Holy See)

vatican.va/roman_curia/s…jolo-un_en.html

 

[gilliam]

“Then there is the Iraqi conflict. The position of the Holy See concerning the military action of 2002-2003 is well known. Everyone can see that it did not lead to a safer world either inside or outside Iraq” ~H.E. Msgr Giovanni Lajolo, Secretary for Relations with States (speaking for the Holy See)

vatican.va/roman_curia/s…jolo-un_en.html

What does this have to do with the just war doctrine? It is someone’s opinion who wanted us to wait for the UN to act (and they were being bribed).

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

followed the link, but couldn’t figure out the author.

In fact, the linked page was very confusing to figure out who was saying what.

Is not the important thing what is said rather than whom says it?

extremecatholic.blogspot.com/html/justwarfaq.html

Why does the name of St. Augustine come up in the discussion of Just War?

St. Augustine lived in the time between the Constantine’s Edict of Toleration of Christianity and the fall of the Western Roman Empire (354-417). Rome fell in 410 to Alaraic, a Visigoth, although things had been falling apart for years. The pacifism of Christianity was being blamed for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Into this scenario Augustine writes that even in war Christians acting as public authorities are bound by laws of charity and justice.

This abstract appears Florida State University’s web site:

The Elements of St. Augustine’s Just War Theory
John Langan, S.J. St. Augustine’s just war theory involves eight principal elements: a punitive conception of war
assessment of the evil of war in terms of the moral evil of attitudes and desires
a search for authorization for the use of violence
a dualistic epistemology which gives priority to spiritual goods
interpretation of Evangelical norms in terms of inner attitudes
passive attitude to authority and social change
use of Biblical texts to legitimate participation in war
an analogical conception of peace.

It does not include noncombatant immunity or conscientious objection. A contemporary assessment of the elements is offered.

St. Augustine also introduces the concept of there being a cause for going to war (*jus ad bellum*) and conduct of war (*jus in bello*) as distinct.

St. Thomas Aquinas developed further the ideas:

• only the sovereign can conduct a just war (i.e. against feuds, duels, commercial disputes, etc.)
• right intention (for justice and not for expansion of territories)
• peace and not vengeance as the object or war

What is the application of the Just War doctrine to Iraq?

Who, according to the Catechism, evaluates the conditions for deciding if a war is just?

1. …The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."… What exactly is prudence, according to the Catechism?

1806. "Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; 'the prudent man looks where he is going.'[Prov 14:15.] 'Keep sane and sober for your prayers.'[1 Pet 4:7 .] Prudence is 'right reason in action,' writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.[St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 47, 2.] It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid."

 

[Matt25]

Just War in a Time of Terrorism
fi-na.org/page1.html

…The final motivation for waging war is in order to establish peace.…War is not a moral good; it is, at best, a necessary evil. A country cannot wage war for economic gain or to settle an old score. A country cannot wage war in order to line its pocket or because war is good for a failing economy. A country that conducts war for any other purpose than establishing peace is not pursuing a just war. The true motivation for war must be clear, neither ambiguous nor duplicitous. Proceeding to war must originate from the highest moral purposes. The promise of peace cannot be a rhetorical political device that hides crass economic, cultural or social motivations underneath.

This last point opens up another critical area of moral discourse around the decision to wage war, one that is treated in classical texts of just war theory (i.e. St. Augustine) but rarely averted to in modern treatments.[[3]](http://fi-na.org/page1.html#_ftn3) That is, the use of rhetorical devices, misinformation and miscommunication by those seeking a moral justification to wage war. St. Augustine, the author of the just war theory and once himself a “spin doctor” in the Roman Empire, was clear that the decision to defend oneself or the neighbor against unjust aggression must be based on fact not fiction. To determine the legitimate moral grounds of military action, we must be told the truth. There can be no spin and no campaign of dis-information. To fulfill this moral principle, a nation must be assured that its military or political leaders are telling the truth, without exaggeration or falsehoods, and that its media is not complicit in these spins for commercial purposes.

This is not as farfetched as it seems. It was only after the Persian Gulf War that we learned that the Administration leaked stories about Saddam Hussein killing babies in an orphanage, charges that were not true. We also should take note of an attempt by the present administration to set up within the Department of Defense an Office of Tactical Dis-information…

As I stated earlier, the principles used to justify going to war are integral. If any of these requirements are missing or not in evidence, then the war is not considered just. Also, if there is evidence to the contrary that indicates that one of these principles is not fulfilled, then the war is not considered just. So, if it can be proven that the motivation for war is not peace but expansion or access to resources, (ie. more water or more oil), then the war cannot be claimed as just.

           Thus far we have looked at the criteria that legitimate the initiation of a defensive action. Now, we must consider the morality of fighting the war itself. Because the means available to fight a war are part of the calculation of going to war, we must analyze how nations act or intend to act while fighting a war. As I stated earlier, the principles of justice apply *in *war as well as *before *a war is announced. The declaration of war does not give any nation the right to suspend or ignore moral and ethical principles... We cannot do whatever we want in war; we cannot do all that is within our power. There are some actions that so violate human dignity or go beyond the boundaries of the common good that we must avoid them, at all costs.

  In order to act morally in war, there must be a proper and proportionate balance in the use of force. This means that a country should use only the amount of force needed to achieve the just purposes of war...Leaving a country without a basic infrastructure such as power and energy distribution, communications, transportation, education, public health and emergency services would be judged immoral. 

  The situation at the end of a war must be better than at its inception. Such is the principle of proportionate outcomes. **If going to war makes matters in the region or the world more volatile, less stable, more prone to destruction than before, then it is immoral to take action.**.. In the same way, the good to be achieved by military action must outweigh the destruction or harm that would have occurred had the war not been waged.

The second condition for the conduct of war is the distinction between combatants and noncombatants…Clearly, in an age of terrorism this principle becomes harder to sustain. Traditionally it has meant that no one can use innocent men, women and children as the target of or as a shield from aggression.

We have outlined the two sets of principles that the Catholic Church uses to evaluate the just war. If a country fulfills the requirements for using force (outlined in the first part of this paper) and conducts the war in a manner consistent with the criteria contained in the second part, then and only then can it claim that its actions are justified from a moral point of view.

 

[John_TE]

gilliam:

What does this have to do with the just war doctrine? It is someone’s opinion who wanted us to wait for the UN to act (and they were being bribed).

The person attached to that opinion happens to be the pope, who’s opinion would tend to carry some weight on a Catholic forum.

“What are we to say of the threat of a war that could strike the people of Iraq … a people already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo? War is never just when there is another means … for settling differences between nations.” Pope John Paul II

 

[FightingFat]

John TE:

The person attached to that opinion happens to be the pope, who’s opinion would tend to carry some weight on a Catholic forum.

You’d be suprised John!