The Just War Theory: A Catholic’s Perspective
Michael Welch
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
Even though many credit St. Augustine with founding the just war theory, this view is partially misleading. Augustine synthesized ideas from classical Greco-Roman and Christian philosophy to construct his theory, so credit can also be given to philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero. Since then, it has been modified by many notable thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, and Francisco Suarez (Orend). Technicalities aside, Augustine was a pivotal figure in developing our contemporary understanding of this tradition (Massaro 70).
The just war theory can be broken down into three components: jus ad bellum, jus en bello, and jus post bellum. Translated from Latin, these mean “justice before war, justice in war, and justice after war.” In this way, the Catholic Church is able to reconcile Jesus’s lofty teachings about loving your neighbor and causing no harm with protecting the innocent (Massaro 104).
Jus ad bellum is mainly addressed towards people in power, since it is up to them to dec...
... middle of paper ...
...ace, jus ad bellum lists multiple criteria for ending a war in a way that would facilitate a stable truce between nations. At the end of World War I in 1919, the Treaty of Versailles placed complete responsibility for the war on the German people (Treaty). The tension formed by this treaty eventually led to Hitler’s rise to power and the initiation of World War II.
The Treaty of Versailles is an example of how the neglect of principles proposed by the Catholic Church, namely social restoration, just accords, long-term security and physical reconstruction, can lead to lasting global repercussions and future wars. The sanctions were enforced in the hope of slowing German recovery and eliminating future conflict. However, the United States didn’t sign this treaty because we recognized that it didn’t give the Germans a fair deal or promote long-term security (Treaty).
This takes us to the concept of just war. Aristotle saw just war as a means to a higher goal. You don't just fight the war to win the war there needs to be a purpose to fighting the war. He goes on to tell us how others view just war. The Romans said war was just only when conducted by the state, and only accompanied by a declaration of hostilities, meaning war had to be declared on someone. Rebellions and revolutions were not considered just wars. The Japanese did not define when war was just or proper. Early Christians rejected war; this came from the effort to be more Christ like, the Golden Rule, due unto others as you would have them do to you. Later the Christians could no longer be pacifists; they were going to have to go to war sometime after Constantine became emperor and declared Christianity as the main religion of the time.
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
The idea of Just War Theory was suggested by Ambrose (Perry, “Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective”), formulated by Augustine, and finally refined by Aquinas. Just War Theory was not made to justify a war (since everyone can say that even total destruction was just), but rather it brings war under control of justice, so that when all nations practice it, war would eventually cease
The problem is that these few criteria for a just war aren’t easy to apply. According to Wink the criteria themselves is not the problem “but the fact that they have been subordinated to the myth of redemptive violence” (Wink 290). Making the just war theory a way to try and justify wars that are unjustifiable. Leading him to believe we should instead change the just war criteria to violence-reduction criteria, since that is what we are all after in the long run. He believes this will be a good medium for both advocates of nonviolence and the just
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
Augustine illustrated on the prevailing Roman doctrine of justum bellum and the Old Testament stories of wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as demanded by God. Augustine aimed that fighting on behalf of the Roman Empire was a Christian obligation since the empire was Christian. Augustine maintained that this was fighting on behalf of God against God’s enemies, just as Israel defended itself against God’s enemies in Old Testament times. Augustine’s thinking has backed greatly to the discussion of what makes warfare justifiable right up until the modern day.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
justice of war and the justice in war in a great depth, and uses numerous historical
World War I was ultimately ended in 1918 after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Peace settlements were signed on June 28, 1918 at the Hall of Mirror in Versailles, Paris. The Treaty was an agreement among the United States, Great Britain, and France. Woodrow Wilson, George Clemenceau, and David Lloyd, who represented the "Big Three" countries, collaborated in negotiating the Treaty. The Treaty of Versailles was designed to weaken Germany and give Germany full blame for causing the war. The Treaty implemented massive reparations to Germany which would obliterate Germany's economy, notwithstanding the millions of dead allied soldiers. The settlement strictly limited the German's military. Germans were additionally forced to depart from their homes in Russia, Poland, and Alsace-Lorraine and return to Germany or Austria. Furthermore Germany had to give back any land belonging to other countries. With no alternative, Germany signed the peace settlements. The Treaty of Versailles was undoubtedly justified, Germany was positively the main instigator of the war and its excessive brutality of fighting provoked the war more particularly. Thus, making the amends to Germany was rational because of all the destruction Germany had triggered.
After the cease-fire of World War I brought the great war to its conclusion, all of the countries involved with the war got together to determine and to negotiate the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The conditions of this treaty were decided by the “winners” of the war, but was initially planned to be an agreement structured along the lines of President Woodrow Wilson’s term peace without victory; however, the meeting to negotiate the terms of surrender after the ceasefire quickly turned into peace with total victory. The events that led up to the Treaty of Versailles into having such a high impact on all countries that were involved was. Because of the following events; The failure of Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points, Germany’s defeat,
Aiming to not give any nations a reason for any future wars, the United States had very specific goals coming in to the treaty;
As WWI was not ended with peace, it brought even greater and more disastrous war, which was WWII. Even though this war was more destructive, but this war brought peace because there were effective agreements, organizations, plans to prevent occurring another war and build peace. Treaty of Versailles, instead of bringing peace to the world, it led to confronting another greater war. As in WWII, a ‘non-aggression’ agreement, which is known as Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was made between Joseph Stalin, the first general secretary of Soviet Union, and Adolf Hitler, the leader of Nazi Party.
World War I was the most destructive and deadly war for its time the world has ever experienced. There was a great amount of effort put into insuring that it would not happen again. At the Paris Peace Conference the ground work was laid for a new safer, and more organized Europe. In doing so it was necessary to instruct new laws, and to reestablish boundaries of countries. This meant that the losers of the war, mostly Germany, would have to suffer the most. The resulting laws agreed on by all the attending countries were known as The Treaty of Versailles. The treaty of Versailles failed to ensure permanent global peace because Germany resented the terms of the treaty. Feeling as if the treaty were unfair, Germany became increasingly set on