Ancient Egypt A 2017 study found that the just war tradition can be traced as far back as to
Ancient Egypt. Egyptian ethics of war usually centered on three main ideas, these including the cosmological role of Egypt, the
pharaoh as a divine office and executor of the will of the gods, and the superiority of the Egyptian state and population over all other states and peoples. Egyptian political theology held that the pharaoh had the exclusive legitimacy in justly initiating a war, usually claimed to carry out the will of the gods.
Senusret I, in the
Twelfth Dynasty, claimed, "I was nursed to be a conqueror...his [Atum's] son and his protector, he gave me to conquer what he conquered." Later pharaohs also considered their sonship of the god
Amun-Re as granting them absolute ability to declare war on the deity's behalf. Pharaohs often visited temples prior to initiating campaigns, where the pharaoh was believed to receive their commands of war from the deities. For example,
Kamose claimed that "I went north because I was strong (enough) to attack the Asiatics through the command of Amon, the just of counsels." A
stele erected by
Thutmose III at the Temple of Amun at
Karnak "provides an unequivocal statement of the pharaoh's divine mandate to wage war on his enemies." As the period of the
New Kingdom progressed and Egypt heightened its territorial ambition, so did the invocation of just war aid the justification of these efforts. The universal principle of
Maat, signifying order and justice, was central to the Egyptian notion of just war and its ability to guarantee Egypt virtually no limits on what it could take, do, or use to guarantee the ambitions of the state. In
Sikhism, the term
dharamyudh describes a war that is fought for just, righteous or religious reasons, especially in defence of one's own beliefs. Though some core tenets in the Sikh religion are understood to emphasise peace and nonviolence, especially before the 1606 execution of
Guru Arjan by
Mughal Emperor
Jahangir, military force may be justified if all peaceful means to settle a conflict have been exhausted, thus resulting in a
dharamyudh.
East Asian Chinese philosophy produced a massive body of work on warfare, much of it during the
Zhou dynasty, especially the
Warring States era. War was justified only as a last resort and only by the rightful sovereign; however, questioning the decision of the emperor concerning the necessity of a military action was not permissible. The success of a military campaign was sufficient proof that the campaign had been righteous. Japan did not develop its own doctrine of just war but between the 5th and the 7th centuries drew heavily from Chinese philosophy, and especially
Confucian views. As part of the Japanese campaign to take the northeastern island
Honshu, Japanese military action was portrayed as an effort to "pacify" the
Emishi people, who were likened to "bandits" and "wild-hearted wolf cubs" and accused of invading Japan's frontier lands.
Ancient Greece and Rome The notion of just war in Europe originates and is developed first in
ancient Greece and then in the
Roman Empire. It was
Aristotle who first introduced the concept and terminology to the
Hellenic world that called war a last resort requiring conduct that would allow the restoration of peace. Aristotle argues that the cultivation of a military is necessary and good for the purpose of self-defense, not for conquering: "The proper object of practising military training is not in order that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in order that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others" (
Politics, Book 7).
Stoic philosopher
Panaetius considered war inhuman, but he contemplated just war when it was impossible to bring peace and justice by peaceful means. Just war could be waged solely for retribution or defense, in both cases having to be declared officially. He also established the importance of treating the defeated in a civilized way, especially those who surrendered, even after a prolonged conflict. In
ancient Rome, a "just cause" for war might include the necessity of repelling an invasion, or retaliation for pillaging or a breach of treaty. War was always potentially
nefas ("wrong, forbidden"), and risked
religious pollution and divine disfavor. A "just war" (
bellum iustum) thus required a ritualized
declaration by the
fetial priests. More broadly, conventions of war and treaty-making were part of the
ius gentium, the "law of nations", the customary moral obligations regarded as innate and universal to human beings.
Christian views Christian Just War thinking is often thought to begin with Saint
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, before being developed further by his contemporary Saint
Augustine of Hippo. The Just War theory, with some amendments, is still used by Christians today as a guide to whether or not a war can be justified, and how it should be fought. Christians may argue "Sometimes war may be necessary and right, even though it may not be good." In the case of a country that has been invaded by an occupying force, for example, war may be the only way to restore justice.
Saint Ambrose Influenced by Roman law, and
Cicero in particular,
Ambrose believed that war was legitimate only for defensive purposes or the punishment of serious wrongdoing, and rulers were obliged to respect treaties, avoid exploiting enemies and treat the defeated with mercy. Ambrose also seems to have regarded military force as permissible against heretics, or in support of Christian orthodoxy. Nevertheless, he strictly prohibited the Church from direct involvement in violence, insisting that clergy must not take up arms themselves. Similarly, warfare had to be undertaken only to fulfill divine law, not for personal motives, and any war driven by emotional excess, vindictiveness or other disordered intentions fell outside the moral limits he envisioned.
Saint Augustine Saint Augustine held that Christians should not resort immediately to violence, but that God has given the sword to governments for a good reason (based upon Romans 13:4). In
Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22 sections 69–76, the main source for his just war ideas, Augustine argues that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when they are obliged to do so. Augustine regarded intention as the main determinant of whether a war was just or sinful: "What is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart." Nonetheless, Augustine asserted that peaceful inaction in the face of a grave wrong that could be rectified only by violence would be a sin. Defense of oneself or the innocent could therefore be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate state authority:They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." But, say they, the wise man will wage Just Wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. According to J. Mark Mattox:In terms of the traditional notion of jus ad bellum [the circumstances under which wars can be justly fought] ... war is a coping mechanism for righteous sovereigns who would ensure that their violent international encounters are minimal, a reflection of the
Divine Will to the greatest extent possible, and always justified. In terms of the traditional notion of jus in bello [justice in war, or the moral considerations which ought to constrain the use of violence in war], war is a coping mechanism for righteous combatants who, by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible. To summarize, Augustine explored the relationship between Christian charity and the use of force in greater philosophical depth than Ambrose, though he ultimately affirmed many of the same principles. Augustine did not attempt to craft a systematic doctrine of just war, and his comments on it are scattered across his writing. Even so, the foundations of what later became the classical just war tradition can be clearly identified in his thought. For Augustine, as for Ambrose, war could also be understood as analogous to a judicial process, in which the political authority uses war to punish those who commit injustice. Indeed, he compared military action to civil litigation seeking restitution or punitive redress. Since God was the ultimate judge, and there were Old Testament precedents for His ordering of wars against Israel's enemies and unbelievers, just war could also become
holy war or
religious war. Several core just war principles emerge from Augustine's writing: Legitimate authority: Only public authorities may wage war; private individuals have no right to initiate armed conflict. Just cause: Defense of the community, protection of allies, or redress for wrongful acts are just causes for war, though Augustine also allowed for offensive action under certain circumstances, citing Moses’ expulsion of the Amorites after they denied Israel peaceful passage. Right intention: Proper inner disposition is essential. A ruler or soldier must act with a mindset comparable to that of a Christian judge or executioner—firm yet guided by love and compassion. Actions motivated by revenge, wrath, or greed invalidate any claim to justice in war. Finally, the ultimate goal of just war must be to establish peace.
Saint Isidore of Seville Isidore of Seville writes: Those wars are unjust which are undertaken without cause. For aside from vengeance or to fight off enemies no just war can be waged. Isidore offers a succinct definition of just war in his
Etymologiae, describing it as a conflict “waged by formal declaration, either to recover seized property or to drive off an enemy”. He immediately contrasts this with unjust war, following ideas drawn from Cicero's
De re publica. Although Isidore's brief, essentially Roman, formulation did not fully engage with Augustine's more sophisticated thinking, and did not fully incorporate subsequent Christian or post-Roman developments, it nevertheless became, like the writings of
Saint Gregory of Tours, an important conduit through which the conception of just war entered the high medieval period, informing the
Decretum of Gratian in particular.
Carolingian period The just war ideas of
Saint Augustine of Hippo and other Church Fathers were transmitted via
Saint Isidore of Seville,
Saint Gregory of Tours and other scholars into the
Carolingian period, informing the Christianizing imperial project of
Charlemagne and the consequent
Carolingian Renaissance. Just/ holy war ideas about legitimate authority, just cause, punishment of enemies/unbelievers and the establishment of peace therefore gained traction, though traditional Christian concerns, particularly among clerics, about the sinfulness of killing in war, or being killed in a state of sin, were reflected in sermons, liturgies and
penitential texts. Proto-
jus in bello rules to protect non-combatants such as clergy, nuns, widows, orphans and the poor, including their property, also began to appear in ecclesiastical texts, as well as some
capitularies (laws or ordinances) issued by Charlemagne and other rulers, anticipating the later
Peace of God, and Truce of God movements.
Peace and Truce of God The medieval
Peace of God (Latin: ) was a 10th-century mass movement in Western Europe instigated by the clergy that granted immunity from violence for non-combatants. Starting in the 11th Century, the
Truce of God (Latin: ) involved Church rules that successfully limited when and where fighting could occur: Catholic forces (e.g. of warring
barons) could not fight each other on Sundays, Thursdays, holidays, the entirety of
Lent and
Advent and other times, severely disrupting the conduct of wars. The 1179
Third Council of the Lateran adopted a version of it for the whole church.
Saint Thomas Aquinas contributed to the development of the just war theory in medieval Europe. The just war theory by Saint
Thomas Aquinas has had a lasting impact on later generations of thinkers and was part of an emerging consensus in
medieval Europe on just war. In the 13th century Aquinas reflected in detail on peace and war. Aquinas was a
Dominican friar and contemplated the teachings of the Bible on peace and war in combination with ideas from
Aristotle,
Plato,
Socrates,
Saint Augustine and other philosophers whose writings are part of the
Western canon. Aquinas' views on war drew heavily on the , a book the Italian monk Gratian had compiled with passages from the Bible. After its publication in the 12th century, the had been republished with commentary from
Pope Innocent IV and the Dominican friar
Raymond of Penafort. Other significant influences on Aquinas just war theory were
Alexander of Hales and
Henry of Segusio. In
Summa Theologica Aquinas asserted that it is not always a
sin to wage war, and he set out criteria for a just war. According to Aquinas, three requirements must be met. Firstly, the war must be waged upon the command of a rightful
sovereign. Secondly, the war needs to be waged for just cause, on account of some wrong the attacked have committed. Thirdly, warriors must have the right intent, namely to promote good and to avoid evil. Aquinas came to the conclusion that a just war could be offensive and that injustice should not be tolerated so as to avoid war. Nevertheless, Aquinas argued that violence must only be used as a last resort. On the
battlefield, violence was only justified to the extent it was necessary. Soldiers needed to avoid cruelty and a just war was limited by the conduct of just combatants. Aquinas argued that it was only in the pursuit of justice, that the good intention of a moral act could justify negative consequences, including the killing of the innocent during a war.
Renaissance and Christian Humanists Various
Renaissance humanists promoted
Pacificist views. •
John Colet famously preached a Lenten sermon before Henry VIII, who was preparing for a war, quoting Cicero "Better an unjust peace rather than the justest war." •
Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote numerous works on peace which criticized Just War theory as a smokescreen and added
extra limitations, notably
The Complaint of Peace and the
Treatise on War (Dulce bellum inexpertis). A leading humanist writer after the Reformation was legal theorist
Hugo Grotius, whose
De jura belli ac pacis re-considered Just War and fighting wars justly.
First World War At the beginning of the
First World War, a group of theologians in Germany published a manifesto that sought to justify the actions of the German government. At the British government's request,
Randall Davidson,
Archbishop of Canterbury, took the lead in collaborating with a large number of other religious leaders, including some with whom he had differed in the past, to write a rebuttal of the Germans' contentions. Both German and British theologians based themselves on the just war theory, each group seeking to prove that it applied to the war waged by its own side.
Contemporary Catholic doctrine The just war doctrine of the
Catholic Church found in the 1992
Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force:" Pope
John Paul II in an address to a group of soldiers noted the following:
Evangelical-Lutheran Churches The
Evangelical-Lutheran Churches affirm just war doctrine; it was formulated by
Martin Luther: • A war can be considered just if it has just authority; this means that it has the injunction of the "God-given calling of ruler, emperor, head of state, and bearer of the sword in the civil realm" • A just war must have just cause and right intention; just war is defensive, whereas unjust war is offensive In a just war, combatants should be distinguished from non-combatants; "when victory has been achieved, one should offer mercy and peace to those who surrender and humble themselves." In the same document, it is stated that wars have accompanied human history since the
fall of man, and according to
the gospel, they will continue to accompany it. While recognizing war as evil, the Russian Orthodox Church does not prohibit its members from participating in hostilities if there is the security of their neighbours and the restoration of trampled justice at stake. War is considered to be necessary but undesirable. It is also stated that the Russian Orthodox Church has had profound respect for soldiers who gave their lives to protect the life and security of their neighbours.
Just war tradition The just war theory, propounded by the medieval Christian philosopher
Thomas Aquinas, was developed further by legal scholars in the context of
international law.
Cardinal Cajetan, the jurist
Francisco de Vitoria, the two
Jesuit priests
Luis de Molina and
Francisco Suárez, as well as the
humanist Hugo Grotius and the lawyer
Luigi Taparelli were most influential in the formation of a
just war tradition. The just war tradition, which was well established by the 19th century, found its practical application in the
Hague Peace Conferences (1899 and 1907) and in the founding of the
League of Nations in 1920. After the
United States Congress declared war on Germany in 1917, Cardinal
James Gibbons issued a letter that all Catholics were to support the war because "Our Lord Jesus Christ does not stand for peace at any price... If by Pacifism is meant the teaching that the use of force is never justifiable, then, however well meant, it is mistaken, and it is hurtful to the life of our country." Armed conflicts such as the
Spanish Civil War,
World War II and the
Cold War were, as a matter of course, judged according to the norms (as established in Aquinas' just war theory) by philosophers such as
Jacques Maritain,
Elizabeth Anscombe and
John Finnis.
Francisco de Vitoria criticized the conquest of America by the
Spanish conquistadors on the basis of just-war theory. With
Alberico Gentili and
Hugo Grotius, just war theory was replaced by
international law theory, codified as a set of rules, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications. Just-war theorists combine a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just-war tradition act as an aid in determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just-war theories aim "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"; they attempt "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice". The just war tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of
jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of
jus in bello). In 1869 the Russian military theorist theorized on the advantages and potential benefits of war. The Soviet leader
Vladimir Lenin defined only three types of just war. But picture to yourselves a slave-owner who owned 100 slaves warring against a slave-owner who owned 200 slaves for a more "just" distribution of slaves. Clearly, the application of the term "defensive" war, or war "for the defense of the fatherland" in such a case would be historically false, and in practice would be sheer deception of the common people, of philistines, of ignorant people, by the astute slaveowners. Precisely in this way are the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie deceiving the peoples by means of "national ideology" and the term "defense of the fatherland" in the present war between slave-owners for fortifying and strengthening slavery. The
anarcho-capitalist scholar
Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) stated that "a
just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is
unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people or try to retain an already-existing coercive rule over them."
Jonathan Riley-Smith writes: The consensus among Christians on the use of violence has changed radically since the crusades were fought. The just war theory prevailing for most of the last two centuries—that violence is an evil that can, in certain situations, be condoned as the lesser of evils—is relatively young. Although it has inherited some elements (the criteria of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention) from the older war theory that first evolved around AD 400, it has rejected two premises that underpinned all medieval just wars, including crusades: first, that violence could be employed on behalf of Christ's intentions for mankind and could even be directly authorized by him; and second, that it was a morally neutral force that drew whatever ethical coloring it had from the intentions of the perpetrators. ==Criteria==