The just war theory is a venerable Christian tradition. It is the philosophical basis of international and American laws of war and its intention is undeniably noble. But it is also deeply flawed, and the horrible war between Israel and Hamas– to which many Western Christians responded with a just war – once again demonstrates its limits.
The fundamental elements of just war theory are two considerations: ad bellum juice (right to war) and juice in bello (in the middle of war). As these expressions suggest in both Latin and English, it is determine whether you have good reason to go to war and whether you fight justly once the war begins.
To answer these big questions, only war theorists ask many the smallest. For ad bellum juice: Is war an option of last resort? Is this declared publicly? Is this declared by a legitimate authority? Is there a just cause? Is there a fair goal? Is there a realistic chance of achieving this goal?
Then for juice in bello: Is the use of force proportionate? Are sufficient precautions taken to avoid civilian casualties? Are prisoners of war treated humanely? Are war crimes punished by their own country? Is the strategy defined with a view to de-escalation as much as possible and, ultimately, a just peace?
Just war theory is not monolithic, as no theory of this time and importance could probably be, but the basics have been well established for centuries. A classic formulation just medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas in his Theological Summa, drawing on the work of the early Christian thinker Augustine. You will find that most iterations go in this direction.
The just war theory is intellectual ancestor of the Geneva Conventions – treaties dealing primarily with juice in bello questions that are at the heart of the international law of war. The influence of this theory is also seen in the way the U.S. Constitution makes Congress, not the president, the legitimate authority to declare war. Justification, like that of James Madison to take notes According to the Constitutional Convention, this “obstructed rather than facilitated war (and rather) facilitated peace.” In other words, if we look more closely at the start of a war, it will be more likely to be just.
Many subsequent American laws on war, including the War Powers Act 1973, are also informed by the demands of just war theory. Prominent modern Christian thinkers like CS Lewis And Reinhold Neibuhr also worked significantly within this tradition.
With such a long lineage and so many questions seeking justice, it can be difficult to understand why I believe that just war theory is deeply flawed. Because, in a way, there is a lot to like about this theory.
Indeed, compared to most alternatives – and the story is bristling with examplesbut the one from last month obscene Hamas attacks should provide sufficient contrast: the dominance of just war theory in the modern order is a remarkable achievement of Christian thought.
Given a binary choice between that and “a world in which there are no limits to war, even in theory, and in which what can be done can be done”, as the writer wrote Catholic pacifist Tom Cornell. put it to Plow– well, just give me a theory of war every time. And to the extent that governments have promised to uphold just war principles, as the U.S. government has, they should be held to those standards.
The problem is that the standard can be manipulated. My main criticism of just war theory is not primarily about hypocrisy, although there is plenty of it. It’s not just that adherents say one thing and do another, but that the theory’s strict standards are often ignored by those who are committed to them.
This is because the standards are not that strict. Just war theory can too easily function less as a limit than as a malleable justification for whatever we have already decided to do. It should not be flouted because it is more flexible than it seems. Like the lawyer to whom Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), we often ask questions not to love our neighbor better but to justify ourselves.
“Since just war theory was invented, each side in every Western war has used its language to justify its selfish demands, and has done so with ease. » as Cornell observed. “After all, no government has ever announced its intention to wage an unjust war. … No victorious nation has ever attributed its success to its own evil acts, and its leaders have never been indicted by an international tribunal for war crimes. This only happens to losers.
Theorists of war in private life are little better, Cornell continued. “Church leaders have no better record than statesmen and generals,” he charged. “Throughout the ages, they have written a blank check to their governments in virtually every war. »
There are exceptionsparticularly in the ad bellum juice phase before the start of a war. But I can’t think of a single American war in living memory in which a critical mass of American just war supporters judged a war unjust in real time, before history’s verdict was rendered. And this class of proponents includes – at least in practice, even if they don’t know the name of the theory – almost all American evangelicals who are not part of a historic peace church.
Is it because our government always It’s true ? Or is it because the standards of the theory are too broad?
Historical records suggest to me that expressions like just cause And legitimate authority And sufficient care to avoid civilian casualties are not mathematical formulas but judgments. And we are inclined to judge in favor of our side, to decide that our choices and those of our friends are justified, whether an impartial (or, let’s say, omniscient) observer agrees or not.
“Christians cannot support violence if they feel that such support exposes them to theological censorship, if they feel that they are not doing the right thing,” in the words of the French theologian. Jacques Ellul. “Thus, acceptance of violence necessarily involves theological views; but these are formulated “after the fact”, after the decision to use violence has been taken.”
In direct contradiction to its purpose, just war theory becomes retroactive justification rather than proactive restraint.
This is how former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, even with a decade of hindsight, used the just war theory to defend the invasion of Iraq in 2003…a preemptive attack and a regime change project that notoriously included the use of tortureLEFT hundreds of thousands innocent dead, and almost eliminated ancient Iraqi Christian communities.
This is how Barack Obama, then president, invoked just war theory explain his approach to foreign policy, while his administration used legislation to 2001 And 2002 justify military intervention against groups in Yemen and Syria that did not exist when this law was written.
The more desperate a situation, the more tempting this type of ethical elasticity will be. And the situation in Israel and Gaza is extremely desperate.
Unlike Hamas, of course, Israel did not spark the current violence with a surprise attack on innocent people. Israel is a partial signatory to the Geneva Conventions, has its own laws of warand does not fight with total disregard for civilian life.
But the Israeli ground attack on Hamas in Gaza, which is now escalating, will be “diabolically difficult”, as former US general David Petraeus said. said Financial Times. The most comparable modern fight might be 2016-2017 Battle of Mosula fight against ISIS which lasted nine months…three times longer than expected – killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and soldiers and displaced a million people. A convincing analysis The Economist says the war in Gaza will be even bloodier.
The inescapable reality, as counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen explains explains to Foreign Affairs, is that Israeli ground forces will face “terribly difficult tactical conditions, including room-to-room combat and tunnel warfare that would result in massive casualties.” Kilcullen continues:
In Gaza, one of the primary initial goals of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) was to separate Hamas fighters from civilians. This was partly to protect the population and partly to identify legitimate targets. But this is one of the most difficult aspects of urban combat, as enemy forces are often entrenched and integrated into non-combatant populations who, whether they support the adversary or not, become human shields. (Mid-October), Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, an IDF spokesperson, said Israel’s “focus has shifted from precision to damage and destruction” in an effort to make Gaza untenable as a Hamas base. This suggests that the IDF is placing less emphasis than before on avoiding civilian targets.
“We will do our best not to harm innocent people,” said Israeli Ambassador to the European Union Haim Regev. said shortly after The deadly Hamas assault. “We are a democratic country. We are bound by international law. But Israel “will use all means to eliminate Hamas and save our people,” he declared in the same breath. “You cannot fight terrorists with your hands tied behind (your back). »
Bound, that is to say, by the strict application of the principles of just war. Less than a month later, the stretching of juice in bello has already started.
Bonnie Kristian is the editorial director of ideas and books at Christianity today.
