Subject: Is the Just War Theory Just?

Introduction The Institute for Economics and Peace published a surprisingly very list of peaceful
countries last August 2014; These were Switzerland, Japan, Qatar, Mauritius, Uruguay, Chile, Botswana,
Costa Rica, Vietnam, Panama and Brazil. However, considering the rapid growth of conflict since 2007,
and the number of years that have passed since the mentioned study, it would not be surprising if the
list had shortened even further. Some wars last for several decades, even centuries, and it would be
inevitable to wonder what reasons would push people to sustain such wars. A popular inquiry is
whether these wars are justifiable; could wars exist for a good end, or could they never be equated to
any good? Take for example the previous wars that have occurred in the name of freedom from
oppression: the American revolutionists versus the British soldiers when America was still a British
colony, the Bangladesh War of Independence, the Haitian Revolution inspired by the French Revolution
against its oppressive government, and many more. Even wars involving terrorists may possibly have a
good end, such that the defeat of fighting against the US government after it overthrew your previous
dictator, but then proceeded to use Phosphorus shells on civilian targets. As a Realist soldier ordered by
the US government to participate in this war, you would call for the right to violate orders to avoid
engaging in such atrocity. However, the Pacifist takes on a unique stand, insisting that there shall be no
justifiable means to engage in war. This paper is an attempt to describe what a just war is based on
several scholars of the Just War theory and the Philosophy of War, and the Christian views on Ethics.
Additionally, it aims to evaluate certain historical wars based on these descriptions. The Just War Theory
The Just War theory is a triad of philosophies of three ancient war ethics pioneers. Marcus Tullius Cicero,
a roman politician and lawyer, is considered the first to formulate a Just War theory, which was then
continued by St. Augustine, although some scholars believe that Aristotle’s theory on justice as
reciprocity had a significant impact on St. Augustine’s writings (Strange, Schneider & Decker, 2006). The
theory was then further developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, who, from the original criteria laid down by
Cicero, formulated three main standards for a just war found in his Summa Theologica¸ question 40,
article 1. The Classical Just War Theory Cicero’s Just War Theory. Four centuries before St. Augustine,
Cicero presented a clear theory on ethical wars. His ideologies were informed by his political
experiences from the ranks of the Roman cursus honorum as a consul, senatorship and governorship.
Cicero not only witnessed the transition of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, but he
participated in various military actions as well, from civil wars to threats of invasion to international
conquests (Haskell, 1946). In the book On the Commonwealth (de res publica), Cicero states that the
conflict should first be addressed by diplomatic discussion, and that war should be the last resort. Honor
and safety were also said to be the only two reasons for a war to be just, and that war itself is not
honorable, and should be avoided. He also presents an outline of criteria for just wars in the Book III of
On the Commonwealth, namely: (1) a proper motive; (2) due announcement and proclamation; (3)
demand of restitution (Cicero’s ideas are mainly political in nature, implying that the government, or the
commonwealth, had the just reason to go to war for two main purposes; that is: (1) to right a wrong that
has been perpetrated against it by another state, or vengeance; and (2) to protect itself from
destruction, or self-defense. (Strange, Schneider & Decker, 2006). Aristotle’s Theory of Justice. Cicero’s
theory being secular in nature provides enough room for evaluation by other religions. Its value on the
state as a responsible agent in war and conflict may further be developed since it is centered on justice,
which comes from social discourse. Thus, the definition of justice according to Cicero may appear vague.
This is where Aristotle’s theory of justice comes into play. According to Aristotle, justice differs in form
depending on the situation. This is a far cry from Plato’s assertion that justice remains the same across
all situations. He divides the notion of justice into two, the first being the complete justice, defined as
the virtue of members of a community or the goodness of life of an entire community as a whole, and
the second being partial justice, which conforms to how we define justice today in different cases and
situations (Johnston, 2011) . In simpler words, in the Philippine context, complete justice may not
necessarily apply to the entire country when once puts into account all the corruption, mischief, and
poverty. On the other hand, the punishment of policemen who had been involved in minority killings
may be considered as something close to partial justice. Aristotle further divided partial justice into two,
namely distributive and corrective justice. These two concepts refer to the fairness in distribution of
goods among all members, and the fairness in exacting punishment or reward to whatever or whomever
it is due. One may say that Aristotle’s concept of justice may be equated to fairness; however, it is not
the same as equality. Aristotle’s justice takes into consideration to the proper form, context, and
intensity of exacting justice. He calls for moderation or due retribution, in the same way he calls for
moderation in engaging in war. By dissecting Aristotle’s principles of justice, one may see its relevance
to Cicero’s Theory of Just War, wherein a war for restitution is just and acceptable. Both Aristotle and
Cicero agree that war should come as a last resort as well (Johnston 2011). Aristotle (1996) states that:
“Men may wage war, first, to ‘provide against their own enslavement;’ second, to ‘obtain empire for the
good of the governed;’ and third, to establish ‘mastery only over those who deserve to be slaves’’. Jus
ad Bellum. The principles of justice in war based on ancient Greek ideologies were condensed into three
main parts: (1) Jus ad Bellum, which talks about the conditions to be considered when engaging in war in
the first place; (2) Jus in bello, which is concerned about conduct during war; and (3) jus post bellum;
which stresses the termination and peace agreements at the end of the war. In jus ad bellum, seven (7)
conditions must be fulfilled by the state or the political community: 1. Just cause. 2. Right intention. 3.
Proper authority and public declaration. 4. Last resort. 5. Probability of Success. 6. Proportionality. Jus in
bello. The manner of which one must engage in war is presented into three parts, namely: 1.
Discrimination/ immunity of innocents. This principle is considered the “cardinal feature of the ethics of
war” (Erskine, 2008). It states that only those actively participating in war may be considered as a target
directly and intentionally. The words direct and intentional are key to determining which are casualties
and which are not. To the Greeks, what are sacred, such as things, places and times dear to the gods and
the royalties, are to be immune from the warfare. In the modern sense, these are the innocent people
and the VIP (Driscoll, 2015). 2. Proportionality of acts within war. This is different from the
proportionality principle of jus ad bellum. More like a cost-benefit analysis of the good and evil of the
war. If the cost of getting something good through warfare is not in proportion to the evil or destruction
it would bring, then the war is disproportionate and would not be permitted. (SOURCE). 3. Double
effect. Double effect simply states that things may not go according to plan when it comes to warfare,
and that it may result to unexpected consequences. This concept borrowed from Medieval Christianity
states that the “spillage of war”, or the injury or death of innocents, may be excused if it was
unintentional (SOURCE). This principle is highly contested since there have been many wars where the
death of innocents was not intended but still foreseen; take nuclear bombings for example. Countless
innocent people die from such attacks, and although the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were meant to
take vengeance on the government, it is easy to predict the massive destruction it brought on innocent
lives. Is resorting to violence despite knowledge of massive, unintentional destruction still considered
unintentional? Is it still accepted as just? Jus post bellum. The Greco-Roman concept of just cause for
warfare are similar in that Cicero and Aristotle agree that man, or the ideal state according to Cicero, is
given reason to make peace, and that violence is supposed to be used only upon the failure of reason to
restore peace. This may seem acceptable across all cultures; however, Cicero believed that warring to
revenge a dishonor done to a state is justifiable. Christianity rejects this idea, stating that war should
only be for the defense and restoration of peace (Holmes, 2004). Aristotle thought the same way and
limited the use of war to what is necessary for peace. Thus, it is possible for one to think of “let go [of an
injustice done] and move on” if it means not sparking another conflict. In this case, I would agree more
with Cicero, who claims that wrong doing must be avenged, regardless of the manner. Incorporation of
Roman Christianity The Grecian standards presented above seem to suggest that ancient wars were
considered as a standardized political activity, wherein parties evaluate several things before executing.
It seems that wars were like a game, with its set of rules and consequences, rather than a life-changing
event. Unlike how we may imagine wars, where warriors were full of passion and rage and indignation,
Greco-Roman warriors carefully plan out their activities, and would decide not to engage in war if they
are bound to lose, even though it means giving up their ideologies. This may be because wars during
those times were primarily centered on imperialism. In reality, this idea of “fair-fighting” is also
inapplicable, for when you find yourself under attack by a kidnapper or a pervert, you would have no
time (or will) to think about how to fight your assailant fairly. Thus, this concept of war may not fully be
accepted by our present context and culture. Additionally, in contrast to Cicero’s concept of justice,
which is centered on natural law and human reason that allows for our evaluation of a feasible war
based on his criteria, the Christian concept of justice is centered on love, and mercy, even for our
enemies. As we will see later on, this ideology stems from several biblical teachings, particularly by Jesus
Christ. St. Augustine’s Just War Theory People often confuse St. Augustine as the father of the Just War
Theory; however, as mentioned above, the theory was originally a Greek concept by Cicero. St.
Augustine, rather, bridged the gap between Roman and European ethics. His works were nonetheless
greatly influenced by Cicero, as Strange, Schneider, and Decker (2006) have contended. St. Augustine
states in his Confessionem, III.iv.7, as translated by Klinton Keyes: “And at that time during the regular
course of study I came across a certain book by Cicero, whose tongue all men admire, but not his heart.
But that book contains his exhortation to philosophy, and it is called Hortensius. That very book changed
my affections, and to you, Lord, it changed my prayers, and it caused me to have other purposes and
desires”. However, he criticized Cicero’s thinking of an ideal state that is consisted of rational individuals.
He acknowledged that humans reasoning may sometimes be overpowered by excitement during war,
which may taint our ability to evaluate the situation. He also pointed out that ruling out God in warfare
would make it unjust; thus, a soldier must repent before going to war, knowing that his moral reasoning
may be clouded by the acts of war (Holmes, 2004). Holmes’ account of St. Augutine’s stand on Just War
implies that the latter still accepts warfare as a means to achieve peace. Furthermore, he states that St.
Augustine considered warfare not as a choice but a necessity in restoring order in a “fallen”, violence-
filled world and that captives and enemies upon surrender must be shown mercy. Thus, the teaching on
the spirit of the peacemaker is maintained. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Revision The concept of the Just War is
further developed and Christianized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, II. Part 2, article 1.
Reflections After St. Augustine, the Just War Theory was further developed and Christianized by St.
Thomas Aquinas; However, it may be more beneficial to consult the Scripture before discussing the
Summa Theologica, since most of the objections that St. Thomas Aquinas replied to were based on the
Scripture. Probably the first biblical basis a pacifist may refer to would be the sixth commandment,
“Thou shall not kill”. There is, however, a contradiction since killing in self-defense is not considered a
crime. Specific exceptions to the sixth commandment are discussed later in this section, after a brief
analysis of the Old and New Testament in terms of warfare. Old VS. New Testament The context of the
Old Testament is the Israel people’s escape from Egypt and their journey to Canaan. During this time,
military activities, although their concept of military is not yet as technological as our modern concept,
are prominent. This is evident is the presence of empires, such as the growing power of Egypt. God is
also presented in the Old Testament as an angry God who uses deathly force to strengthen the
foundation of His people, and to exact punishment upon evildoers (take, for example, the wiping of
humanity). Certain verses from the bible seem to picture similar forceful and punitive actions as well.
Roman 13:1-7 shows that the use of arms is authorized for civil officials “in as much as they are divinely
commissioned to restrain and punish evildoers” (Holmes, 2004). There are also some contradicting
verses which seems to condemn warfare, such as that of Ps 46:120, which calls upon the God who
ceases wars and destroys weaponry; or the verse in Genesis 9:6, which says “whoever sheds the blood
of man, by man, shall his blood be shed”. However, other verses do not seem to condemn warfare, but
instead limits its use to defense. For example, the Israelites were instructed to limit their use of violence
during their venture to Canaan in Deut. 2. David, because he is a man of war, was not allowed to
participate in the building of God’s temple because he is a man of war. There are several other verses
with similar meaning found in the bible; however, I believe there was no indication of direct
condemnation against David. The New Testament, on the other hand, does not directly address the use
of general warfare as does the Old Testament. The New Testament instead addressed individual
participation to wars, specifically that of churches and Christians. in Jn. 18:1-11, Jesus told Peter to “put
away [his] sword”. In Mt. 5:38-48, He taught His disciples not to resist evil. In support to this, Pacifists
would say that the New Testament teaches Christians to not fight in war, but to endure it. However, it
seems that there are no direct references regarding the state or government’s use of force, which
mirrors what is said in the Old Testament. If compared to Western or Greek concept of war, the state is
also the one that is appointed with warfare authority, not civilians. This is why some Christians who do
acknowledge the government’s right to warfare would question whether they should or should not
participate. Given the differences between the two Testaments, and the question posed earlier, I have
built my case on how we may reconcile the Old and New Testament. From both the Old and New
Testament, we may deduce that warfare is to be limited to defensive, protective, and justice-exacting
purposes, and that it is entrusted to the government or state. This idea is similar to those of Cicero and
Aristotle; However, there is change in that, contrary to Western ideas, warfare should not be done for
revenge, but only for necessities in restoring or maintaining peace and order in a state. Aggression is
therefore ruled out, and is replaced by love and mercy. The New Testament talks about Jesus Himself
instilling unto us the virtues of love and mercy; hence we can safely say that the “gentler” New
Testament does not aim to oust the “authoritative” teachings of the Old Testament, but to confirm the
underlying loving force of the latter that we may not easily see because of the several verses about
punishment and justice. In the end, we see that love and mercy still needs action, or force, to protect
the innocent and to repel aggression or attacks. Chrisitians’ Participation in War I hope I do not sound
too aggressive when I say that Christians might also have a place in warfare. This is because we are not
just Christians, we are also Citizens, friends, family, brother, sister, etc. This is supported by Just War
Theorists, who according to Holmes (2014), assert the inseparability of moral/spiritual and political
beliefs. I believe I have also heard or read from somewhere that the church and state are not separate
forces, but work together to instill peace and order in their communities. Therefore, we have the
responsibility, if we do agree with the Just War Theory - and I do - to participate in morally related
governmental activities. If the situation calls for it, I would willingly volunteer for military service if it
means protecting my loved ones. Of course, that would also mean that I am volunteering on their
behalf, and that I will violently object if my loved ones volunteer as well. Knowing them, they would not
allow my participation in wars; however, it is not impossible that time will come, a country would need
all the help it can get to protect itself. In my opinion, the state which started the war should be held
more responsible for the destruction, while the state which retaliated in self-defense, protection and
with mercy to its captives, is only acting appropriately. Until all states are able to use verbal discussion
without resorting to violence, the Christian Just War Theory remains appropriate. I had to come up with
a mind experiment in order to solidify my argument in support to the Just War Theory. This is aided by
the movie I have just recently watched for Philosophy class, which is entitled ___________________.
Suppose that a country in under attack, and its government has solicited the aid of its people by
recruiting new soldiers. You may find yourself wondering if you will ever be able to live in peace knowing
that other men are dying for your country and your people. You know that there is nothing that may
stop your enemy, and practically, there is nothing that may stop the war now. You decide to enlist as a
medic, and swore never to touch any form of weapon in the process, this way you will be able to help
your country without taking lives. During the war, you watch feeling helplessly, as your friends being
attacked, yet you have no way of getting rid of their attackers as you had no weapon. Eventually you find
yourself at point blank with an enemy’s gun. To this situation, a quote from Gary DeMar (2016) may be
most appropriate: “How “self-giving” should Christians in Paris or San Bernardino have been when
confronted with the worst kind of human evil? Would it have been more “selfgiving” by dying at the
hands of murderers or would it have been more loving to stop those who were pumping bullets into
people?” (Gary DeMar, 2016). Conclusion: Revisions of the Western Just War Theory 1. no revenge 2.
only for peace and defense 3. loving, merciful to enemies (e.g. captives) etc. While it is true that the rule
of law will neither cure nor wholly control a sin-ridden society, the fact remains that in God’s creation all
individual and societal activities are and should be rulegoverned. The role of civil law is to govern
activities within a society. The role of international law is to govern the activities of an international
society. The just war theory provides a basis for laws of war – not because war is good but because it
must be restricted and brought more and more under control, even while we work for its total abolition.
In fact, just war ideals shaped the Geneva Convention and other international agreements, as well as
helping to shape army regulations in the United States and elsewhere. Law is not enough, but it does
have an educative function and, with the sanction’s of international opinion and pressure, it gains a
deterrent function as well. 1. What is the just war theory - Greco-roman and Christian Value – A triad of
Augustine, Aristotle and cicero’s ideas. http://www.lbcc.edu/Fulbright/documents/JustWar.pdf i. Cicero
as father of just war theory - https://satyagraha.wordpress.com/ 2012/05/24/is-cicero-the-father-of-
just-war-theory/ 1. Cicero’s on the commonwealth (de res publica) - https://
satyagraha.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/is-cicero-the-father-of-just-wartheory/ ii. Cicero’s influence on
Augustine - http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=4978&context=etd
iii.Aristotle’s theory on justice as reciprocity - http://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/
courses/phil320/23.%20Just%20War%20Theory.pdf https://is.cuni.cz/studium/predmety/index.php?
do=download&did=104852&kod=JPM327 iv.St Augustine - https://intervarsity.org/news/just-war 2.
Synthesis: Jus in bello and jus ad bellum - http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/18/just-wartheory-and-the-
ethics-of-drone-warfare/ http://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil320/23.%20Just%20War
%20Theory.pdf Incorporation of Christianity to Greek values 1. Saint Thomas Aquinas revision;
conditions on just war – in corporation of Christian values to greek ideas of war
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jasingle/justwar.html http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ 3040.htm 2.
Biblical quotes on warring - https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-AboutJust-War/ a.
Biblical justifications of war: http://www.globalministries.org/ examination_of_biblical_justifications 3.
What jesus says about warring – 4. http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/jesus-on-war a. did jesus teach
about pacifism? http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/did-jesusteach-pacifism Church teachings 4. Most
Christians are against the just war - http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/ against.shtml 5. The church
rejects just war theory, aims to use just peace theory instead: https://
www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/landmark-vatican-conference-rejects-just-war-theoryasks-encyclical-
nonviolence a. Church should be promoting nonviolence b. People might not think deeply and evaluate
actions because of the just war 6. Justified rage 7. Unjust war
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/ mcmahanjeffUnjust_War.pdf a. Why jus in
bello cannot be independent of jus ad bellum b. And other things like liability etc. Just read it later. c.
Regardless of force as defense 8. I will try to use some of their arguments and say that just war theory
does not promote violence. a. Use the criteria, particularly the “last resort”, and “proportionality” The
first Crusade and the Just war Theory 1. http://www.medievalists.net/2011/10/the-first-crusade-and-
just-war-theory-an-evaluationof-the-justification-of-the-first-crusade/ Other wars