Jus ad Bellum

I am sick. I am sick of seeing dead children on my television screen.

I am sick of seeing mothers hold their dead infants and toddlers in their arms with the desert as their backdrop. I am sick of watching doctors cry because even they, who are trained in blood cannot endure the carnage. 

 

I have forgotten who hit who first; who called who a bad name; who took each other’s property or who is the bad guy and who is the good guy. I have no particular loyalties.

The arguments for the waging of “just war” continue and the principles of appeal are voiced in such a way so as to convince that war is reasonable, or that it is unavoidable given so and so circumstances. 

 

Many of the conflicts taking place in the world today occur among members of the three Biblical traditions that all point to the figure of Abraham and call him Patriarch; Abraham, whose descendents “numbered as the stars” because he welcomed the stranger in the desert. According to the story, Abraham’s welcoming of the stranger in the desert approximately 3800 years ago was so unique and such an unusual thing to do that the visitors he welcomed made it possible for Isaac to be born. Welcoming the stranger became a foundational ethic for the Biblical traditions, as well as the protection and care of the widow and the orphan and to walk humbly with God, to seek after justice and to extend mercy. One could only wish that the commandments of the Bible had included one more, “Thou shall fight fair.”

 

I am not a statesman, a politician, a national leader, or a general.

I may indeed be naïve and others may tell me that I do not understand what is at stake; how long the history of animosity; how so-and-so has a right to defend themselves; how blah, blah, blah, blah. The arguments that I hear are appeals to the justification of the waging of war. But I hear no one defending the ways by which war is waged. No one rushes to the defense of the tactics, the means, the strategies and the execution of war once war has been declared. No one defends because all are guilty of violating the sensibilities of playing fair and fighting fair that one learns when one is four years old.

 

Why is it that after thousands of years of warring some of us are still horrified at the means by which war is waged? I believe this is so because many of us sense deep within ourselves that there are (or should be) rules to the waging of war. That even in the midst of humanity’s most uncivilized behavior there should be efforts made to be civil and humane.  And there are. And although we may not know by rote the principles of Just War Theory, we know the difference between playing nice (or fighting nice) and not. We know who should be left to the fighting and who should be left out of it. We know what a sucker punch is and we know when the innocent are being trampled. We know what disproportionate means are and we know when a punch has been answered by a shotgun.

 

There are those who would contend that there is no such thing as a “just war,” and those who would declare the term an oxymoron. Just war theory has a long philosophical history which is most often cited as having begun with Augustine of Hippo (who argued that a legitimate use of violence could be justified in the protection of the weak and innocent, or to make others 'more good'), but the earliest treatments extend back into classical Greece and Rome with Aristotle and Cicero. Sometimes the principles of just war theory are identified as “Christian just war theory” because its most notable formulators include Augustine and Aquinas, but the use of this term would be misleading if it created the impression that only Christians are bound by its rules. For the principles of just war theory have been affirmed and adopted by international governing bodies including The United Nations Charter, The Hague and, particularly as regards the involvement of civilians in war, by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Just war theory is usually divided into three parts. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the conditions under which a government may resort to war in the first place; 2) jus in bellum, which concerns the conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the obligations to the restoration of peace and the reconstruction of war zones. Just war theory is studied at “war colleges,” it has been the topic of many published volumes and of numerous doctoral dissertations. But for the sake of space, these are, “in a nutshell,” the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bellum. I will not list the requirements of jus post bellum because in order that they be relevant, war must cease and at this point that seems unlikely:

Jus ad bellum

1. War must always be a last resort, to be used only when all peaceful means have been exhausted.

2. There must always be a just cause. War can only be used in self-defense against an aggressor to protect the innocent who are being violated. It can never be used simply to expand one’s wealth, power or territory.

3. War must always be declared by legitimate political authority.

4. The goal of war must always be attainable. It is wrong to risk lives if there is no hope of success.

5. The ultimate objective of war must always be the restoration of peace (note: NOT vengeance).  Comparative Religious Ethics, Darrell Fasching, 2000.

Jus in bellum

6. Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians.

 

7. Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated. Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

I think the world has forgotten them. I think it needs a reminder. I think it would be a very good idea if on one appointed day in the very near future…Oh, I don’t know. Pick one. Pick a date. How about Australian Father’s Day on August 28, or Canadian Thanksgiving on October 9, or Gandhi’s birthday, October 2 (which also happens to be mine) or Veteran’s Day, November 11? On that appointed day may every newspaper in the world print them on its front page, may every magazine display them on its cover; and every local and national television station present on our screens for two minutes the terms of engagement of war that humanity has agreed upon. Perhaps then, those who are guilty will be shamed, those who violate them will be exposed and those who affirm them will be moved to insist on their observance.

 

And yes, I know. You may say I’m a dreamer.

But I’m not the only one.