Justification of War

¶ … Just War" Theory The idea of a 'just war' is a conundrum. How can one group of people consider their actions 'right' or 'just' to apply military force against an another group. When can one group's actions, which will create devastation, economic difficulty, and death to thousands of people, be considered 'right?' In a civilized society, the concept of a 'just war' has become the centerpiece of many discussions, and has acted as a gate keeper, restraining hawkish tendencies of nations who pride themselves in freedom, and individual liberty.

In order for a nation to engage in an activity which creates harm for another group, there must be a justifiable reason. Just-war theory deals with the justification of how wars are fought, and attempts to give answers for why. Often the justification is based in either theoretical (ethical arguments) or in long standing historical hostilities between peoples. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying the engagement of war and as well as the forms of warfare.

The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition" deals with the historical body of rules or mutual agreements existing in various wars across the ages. For instance international conventions, like those established at Geneva and Hague are collections of historical rules which are aimed at limiting certain kinds of warfare. The Geneva Convention addressed how prisoners are to be treated, and how war campaigns are to be directed toward military assets, and not civilian targets, etc.

Ethics play a tempering roll in these standards in order to stake out a middle ground by which nations can attack each other, and still demonstrate respect for the human rights of others. Historically, the just-war policies commonly evolve between two similar enemies. When enemies differ greatly in religious beliefs, race, or language, war conventions have rarely been applied because the parties have no common ground on which to base a mutual understanding. Nonetheless, the contention of modern philosophers has been the selective application of these boundaries.

If just war theory is based on a universal concern for the well being of all peoples, then the rules of war should apply to all equally; that is, just war theory should be universal. (iep.etm.edu, online) In some ways, the just-war concept is as old as warfare itself. Early records of individual warriors have included ideas of honor within their ranks in the way the soldiers treated their captives, and conquered peopled.

Even television ideologues who wrote about gunfights in the wild, Wild West gave examples of codes of honor. A gunfighter would never 'shot someone on the back,' and thus demonstrate a code of honor within the process of his disputes.

While the specifics of what is honorable differ between people groups with time and place, the presence of this argument is evidence that mankind is concerned with the justice of his actions when he picks up a gun, or commands a naval task force with the purpose of delivering deadly force on another individual or group. The idea of a just war has been discussed as far back into history as biblical times.

Then the children of Israel completed their exodus form Egypt, and were about to enter the land which they believed was their divine right, they were given the command to war against the existing peoples and take the land for their own. (Holy Bible, Joshua chapter 1) Entering into modern times, Augustine one of the first faced with the conundrum of justifying a war effort when those participating in the war had declared their religious allegiance to Christianity.

Augustine lived in Rome, and after Constantine Edict of Milan which declared Rome a Christian empire, the problem of justifying the military conquests of the empire was first and foremost on philosopher's minds, and tongues. Augustine was one of the first to clearly state a basis for measuring the justice of a war effort. As instances of worthy causes Augustine named the following principles.

A preservation of the well-being of the state, punishment of neighbor nations that had refused to make amends for wrongs committed by their subjects, to restore what had been taken unjustly, And because he did live in Rome, Augustine had to include the purpose of expanding empire if one was taking land away from a tyrant (City of God, Book 4, Para. 15). Augustine saw wars as "stern and lasting necessities" even when the results were misery for human beings. War was simply part of the human condition.

Even good kings waged wars." (Wells, 1996) Expositions continued to evolve, and were added to by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who was first to clearly and specifically define the ethical basis for a just war. His work is still considered to be some of the guiding tenets of Just War Theory. They include: Just Cause (usually taken to mean defense against an attack). If a nation is attacked, it has the just right to strike back, and defend itself. Right Authority (established political authorities, not private citizens).

War is just if used as a basis if establishing positive authority which will work in favor of the conquered citizens. Right Intention (not the love of cruelty or the lust for power). Motive for war is an important aspect of addressing the 'justice' of a war. Good Outcome (there must be a greater amount of good resulting than the evil done by violence). For example, many today questions the justice of American war planed dropping atomic weapons on Japan. The devastation to military and civilian targets was horrendous.

However, this single attack ended a war that would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides had American forces been forced to land on Japanese mainland in order to end the war. Proportionality (do not use more force than necessary). This point has to be balance by the desires of the aggressor to use overwhelming force in order to complete the objective. Reasonable Hope for Success (have a reasonable chance that peace will indeed result).

If there is not hope for success, then throwing men into the jaws of ongoing conflict is an immoral act. Last Resort (all non-violent means of diplomacy must have been exhausted). (Thistlethwaithe, 2002) Those opposed to the just war concept are those of a skeptical persuasion who do not believe that morality can or should exist in war.

These positions are not pacifist positions, rather they address the belief that war is an unjust action, and therefore there is no may of submitting the immoral actor of warfare into a moral or ethical framework. These are various positions against the concept of morality in war, and their positions are divided into the following categories. Consequentialists and utilitarians claim that if the purpose of a war is victory, then all methods should be employed to ensure victory at a minimum of expense and time.

Arguments from 'military necessity' are of this type, and the above example of nuclear weapon usage falls into this category. A consequentialist is likely to suggest assassination of an individual dictator or leader in order to forward their cause. (Wells, 1996) Intrinsicists also believe that no morality can exist in the state of war, for they claim it can only exist in a peaceful situation in which recourse exists to conflict resolving institutions.

Intrinsicists may claim that possessing a just cause for the conflict is a sufficient condition for pursuing whatever means are necessary to gain a victory or to punish an enemy. Getting to the heart of a just war theory is a difficult philosophical task, but moral people must address these issues if they are to be able to defend their own well being, or protect others from harm on a global scale.

What is at the heart of a just war theory is that the term "all's fair in war" is a misnomer. All actions are not fair, right, or just in a war. Even against morally permissible targets, when pursuing a just cause, military forces are to take an approach thus limits destruction, suffering, and injury to the extent it is possible. The just war theory also is not a basis to determine an absolute limit to the amount of morally acceptable destruction, suffering, and injury.

The just war theory cannot be used as a measuring stick to find black and white. Just war theory is used to determine shades of gray, and to be used as principles to guide warfare in a direction which will be as humane as possible, rather than allowing armed forces to execute a scorched earth policy, destroying anything and everything in its path.

According to Wells, (1996) the amount of morally permissible suffering depends on two things: how morally important it is to bring the war to a successful conclusion, and how necessary the weapon or tactic causing the suffering is for bringing about this morally important conclusion. Thus just war theory affects the kind of weapons which are employed as well as the methods of war, and the issues over which civilized peoples should go to war.

This foundation, although extending back to times prior to Europe's Middle ages, or renaissance period, exerted little influence over the wars which were common place on the European continent during the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. The Just war theories, which have been described, are the products of modern man wrestling with the ethical and moral consequences of their actions when compared to a higher power, or an objective rule of law. Christianity and Christian principles caused both Augustine and St.

Thomas Aquinas to develop their treatises on a just war. And the conventions, such as Geneva and Hague, were also the results of civilized nations which sought to develop principles under which they would willingly abide. This political paradigm is unique to western civilization, and unfortunately did not exist out he European continent or in England during the period in question.

During the middle ages, and leading into the European renaissance, lands were ruled by kings, and the concept of 'rule of law' had been replaced by 'the divine right and rule of the king.' Monarchs ruled with absolute power and were accountable to no one other then themselves for their decisions. While they may have paid varying amounts of attention to advisors, these men, such as Cardinal Richelieu, often had their own agenda's, and advised the king for their own personal gain.

Such was the case of disorder throughout the European continent which leads to centuries of civilization's decay, and political feuds which still are deep in the hearts of Europeans today. Regarding the major wars during the time of Henry V and VI, these conflicts were not engaged in due to applications of the just war theories.

Who could question a King, and call him to accounts for his decisions to go to war? He was accountable to no one, and the two most populace and economically successful nations in the region, France and England, were at war almost constantly. The most significant war between these two cultural giants was the 100 years war, extending from the reign of Henry IV into the reign of Henry V, and then finally Henry VI finally say its conclusion.

The 100 years war is a classical example of the means, and motives for war during this time, which was the acquisition and control over land for the purpose of amassing power and wealth. During this period of medieval history, 90% of the citizens were engaged in agricultural work. The land was the source of wealth, as the eland produced crops, and pastured animals which could be sold at profits, or traded for favors.

As a result of the agrigarian economy, those who governed the land were able to control the economy, and thereby promote themselves into positions of power and authority. The agricultural lifestyles had created a feudal society, in which powerful lords, who lived in castles, governed the land, and provided a measure of protection for the farmers. Those who worked the land lived outside the castle walls in shacks and hovels, trying to raise their crops and families without catching the Black Death, or suffering from other diseases, or natural disasters.

Often when the peasants could not pay their taxes to the lords, the lord would take possession of the land, and 'lease' it back to the people. The farmers stayed in their homes, and continued to work for the lord, but now they had no source of personal equity. All they had belonged to the lord of the province. The hundred year's war was fought over land, and the control over a few bottles of wine.

During the reign of Henry IV, the English had a triangular trade relationship the Flemish people, and France. England has the fleece needed for warm clothing, and the Flemish had finished cloth which the English then took to southern France to purchase wine for themselves. The fleece originated in Flanders, which had become an industrial center for the nation, and the leaders of Flanders had once been servants under the feudal system to the king of France. The war started over the wine.

When the king of France moved to take control of southern France, and the vineyards from which the nobles of Flanders were purchasing their wine, the nobles who had allowed their lives to be previously controlled by the French monarch took steps to protect their commerce relationship, and engaged France in a war on northern French soil so that the king would stay away from the southern vineyards. A civil war soon broke out in Flanders, which was on French soil.

With the English who lived there, and created commerce relationship, supporting the manufacturing middle class and the French supporting the land-owning nobility. At the time, the English king controlled much of France, particularly in the fertile South because some time earlier, Eleanor of Aquitaine, heiress to the region, had married Henry II of England in the mid-12th century.

This politically expedient relationship was the source of constant bickering along the French-English frontier, and the French kings lived fear an English invasion which could be manifested from the north and the south at the same time.

Between Flanders in the North and the English in the South, the French monarchs were caught in a "nutcracker." In response to the threat, and the first shots of that would last for over 100 years, the French sought to make a treaty with Scotland in order to put the English into their own nutcracker. The rest, as they say, is history, as the conflict took over 100 years to sort out.

From the colors of this political war over land and wine, Shakespeare wrote his series of plays, Henry IV part one and two, Henry V and Henry VI, parts one and two. With his ability to catch both the highest aspiration of honor for one's country, and the lowest treachery which is born in a selfish heart, Shakespeare captured the issues at hand during this time period.

His play, Henry V, follows the young king from an immoral and uncultured youth to an honorable king who leads his troupes to victory of a French force which is much larger, and better equipped. King Henry is shown as a man who becomes one who is worth following into the cause of a war. As such, the concept of a just war is not addressed in this play. Shakespeare's works typically used political events to unearth personal characteristics.

From Macbeth to The Merchant of Venice, the political events which form the backdrop of Shakespeare's plays are not evaluated as good, or bad of themselves. Shakespeare, like Augustine, recognized and accepted the fact that men with political aspiration will go to war over issues both large and small. Shakespeare seemed to have a unique talent for identifying the small issues of personal pride, bitterness over past injustice, or simply a treacherous, selfish heart as the source and motivators of men's actions.

His hero's and antagonists were caught in the grasp of their own desires, as well as pitted against the.