Justice in war and the love of neighbour
In one of the last posts on the thirty-nine articles, I referred briefly to ideas of the just war. The very concept tends to stir up all sorts of sloppy thinking, and I want to clarify my own thoughts a little bit. I’ve also been prompted a bit by this post from John Hobbins. I should start by saying that I don’t regard this as a “theory” despite most everyone’s tendency to refer to “just war theory” and more a set of pragmatic theological ways of thinking about war, justice and the conduct of nations.
At one level, there is very little in the scriptures that offers a secure footing for Christian thinking. One can, however, appeal indirectly to the prophetic witness which sees increasingly sees the wars against Israel of Assyria and Babylon as punishment for the lack of justice in the land. One can also appeal to the passing reference in Romans to the role of the state as promoting virtue and preventing vice. Taken together these suggest with a range of other scattered references, one can see a role of the governing authority as one of establishing justice. (From that point of view, it is less any particular action in Iraq that provides the basis for criticising the current Iraq war, but the blatant and manifest injustice of Guantanamo, where the US government has abrogated the basic tenets of justice.) Behind and beyond this is a constant summons to, and promise of, God’s gift of perfect peace and justice going hand in hand in the eschatological era. The human longing for both (which often seem incompatible in the present) is legitimated and undergirded by God’s promise. But this promise also challenges any perception that peace means an absence of war, achieved by conniving in the turning of a blind eye to injustice.
In many respects the just war tradition begins with Augustine:
Think, then, of this first of all, when you are arming for the battle, that even your bodily strength is a gift of God; for, considering this, you will not employ the gift of God against God. For, when faith is pledged, it is to be kept even with the enemy against whom the war is waged, how much more with the friend for whom the battle is fought! Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace. For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged in order that peace may be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of a peacemaker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the advantages of peace; for our Lord says:”Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9) If, however, peace among men be so sweet as procuring temporal safety, how much sweeter is that peace with God which procures for men the eternal felicity of the angels! Let necessity, therefore, and not your will, slay the enemy who fights against you. As violence is used towards him who rebels and resists, so mercy is due to the vanquished or the captive, especially in the case in which future troubling of the peace is not to be feared. (Letter 189, to Boniface)
What is particularly notable is that Augustine begins this letter with a reminder of the commandment to love ones neighbour as oneself. War, as a necessity, is to be governed, strange as it may seem, by the commandment to love. That is to say, it is more Christian when it is directed to the aid of another, than when it is exercised only in self-defence. It is about righting injustice, and obtaining peace for the other, not for aggrandizing oneself and one’s cause. This must then govern not only the reason for, and goal of, any war; it must also govern the conduct of the war, and the way in which the enemy is treated.
From these roots arose a tradition of thinking about war, concerned as much with how the human tendency to violence is to be restrained in war as with the reasons for going to war in the first place. It has had various characteristics, which are unfortunately often understood as a series of boxes to be ticked, but are better seen as practical considerations arising out of this overall consideration of how one loves a neighbour, both in rescuing the oppressed neighbour, and in putting right the unjust one. I propose briefly to enumerate and reflect on some of the most important of these practical considerations.
War must be declared by a legitimate authority. This has traditionally been understood to mean a government of some shape or form, since it is to governments that the task of establishing and maintaining justice is given. (One can see that in terms of the kind of divine ordering Paul talks about in Romans 13, or in less theological terms as the moral purpose and legitimation of government generally.) Then war is the temporary and extraordinary extension into the international arena of that permanent and ordinary role of establishing justice within the national one. In the mediaeval period the papacy in theory could sometimes play the role of a supranational authority and judge, and in the modern world the United Nations has by treaty a somewhat similar role. Unfortunately, in practice both the mediaeval papacy and the modern UN have been hamstrung by the political realities and disputes which often made and make them appear ineffectual, biased and unable to exercise such a role. It might well be desirable to work for, and then with, a more effective UN, but the lessons of history are not entirely encouraging.
The legitimate authority must have a just cause and a good intention. That is, the waging of war must be seen, ultimately as provoked by a particular injustice (the genocide of a whole ethnic group, for example) and the desire to save the victims from that injustice. It has to be seen, even if extraordinary, as a proper extension of the ordinary work of government in promoting justice, and passing judgement on the wrong-doer for the sake of the common good. It is quite easy to see how, in theory at least, just causes can provide excuses for imperialistic and economic intentions. It is less easy to see in practice, how the self-interests of nations can be entirely disengaged from the moral calculus.
It should be a last resort, and have a good chance of success. I bracket these together, because they are where the moral and the practical, the theological and political, judgements become hopelessly entangled. What does a last resort actually mean? Does it mean when there is no other option, which is what many have taken it to mean, or when other reasonable options seem unlikely to meet with success? Those who take the former route make much of “sanctions” but year upon year of sanctions are in fact a war of attrition against a civilian population, carried out by non-military means. “Sanctions” often seem to me to have become a moral vacuum, punishing the innocent citizen to avoid attacking the guilty leader, a substitute for war rather than a last warning before it. Again, when do negotiations become a fruitless option, used by the “enemy” as a means of delaying things until they have placed their forces or their material logistics in a more favourable position to engage in combat? “Last resort” is a hard-headed military and political judgement, and not simply the moral declaration of an armchair theologian.
It might be said that almost the reverse is true of a “good chance of success”. It sounds like a purely pragmatic judgement, but in fact is again rooted in the theological perception of war as love of neighbour, and the establishment of justice. If the drastic means of war, which is always be known to have a serious moral downside in death and destruction is to be in any way seen as promoting justice and righting wrong, government has to be able to be reasonably certain that the result of going to war will in the end be better than that of not going to war. The moral and the pragmatic are inseparable here, which is why the ideas of “just war” can’t be seen as a theory legitimating war, but only as a way of thinking about it that brings some ethical considerations to bear on hard-headed pragmatic judgements.
Finally, there are reflections on the means of waging war, that they should be proportionate and discriminate. The latter of these takes its shape from the act of judgement that is the calling of government. If the purpose of war is fundamentally to prosecute the guilty and liberate the innocent, then it must be carried out in a way that serves that end, as far as lies within the power of the government to do so. The former follows from reflecting on the need to serve justice. A disproportionate response will never be a just one. In both these aims we find ourselves in the odd situation that it is both theoretically possible to be more disproportionate than ever before (the moral problem with any weapon of mass destruction) and pragmatically possible to be more discriminate than ever before (with laser-targeted and satellite-guided weaponry). One of the lesser noted facts of the last two Gulf Wars (whatever their other rights and wrongs) has been the way in which judgements about discrimination and targeting have become part of the ordinary public discourse and strategic prosecution of war.
The just war tradition is far from offering a perfect solution, or even comprehensive guidance to those who have to consider the options of war. It does, however, offer some ways of thinking morally about what governments do that are rooted in the moral and theological discourse about justice, and the human obligation to love the neighbour. As such, I still think it is the best we’ve got, for all its imperfections, if we want to live in the real world.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
What a fine post. It certainly bests anything I might have written.
In the case of the Iraq war, the political debate this side of the pond going into it tended to be pathetic. For example, the speeches in the Senate by Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in support of their vote in favor of authorizing the Bush administration to go to war are best forgotten. I can’t think of anything that Bush said in the run-up to the war that made me want to support it.
On the other hand, speeches by Tony Blair and other Labour MPs in favor of intervention struck a chord with me. Rightly or wrongly, it was because of an appeal, blatant or subtle, to the principle of loving one’s neighbor.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
John, you’re too kind in your praise. I did send you a trackback from this post, but again it seems that Wordpress and Typepad don’t like talking to each other!
December 30th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Doug - I wondered if you ever read this old post of mine on the topic (warning, it’s a bit long! you could probably skip the first half)
December 30th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Thanks, Sam. A interesting reflection because it is so specific to the Iraq war, whereas I have tended to stay within more general issues. I am not at all persuaded by Hauerwas, nor by the idea you take from him in your 2006 postscript “What if all the Christians simply refused to kill each other and put their common faith above allegiance to the state?” Well, go back seventy years, and ask which Christians, the German ones or those of the Confessing Church, and you realise how little Hauerwas’ ideal ethical church bears any relation to empirical reality.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:13 am
Hi, Doug! I was successful in loading the page this time. Maybe I was trying to get through while you were uploading the new version of Wordpress? My browser is Mozilla Firefox and my OS is XP Pro.
As always, I appreciate your careful, thoughtful approach to such a difficult issue. I have three quick thoughts in response.
• … it is less any particular action in Iraq that provides the basis for criticising the current Iraq war, but the blatant and manifest injustice of Guantanamo, where the US government has abrogated the basic tenets of justice.
First: I think you and I would agree that justice and injustice are points on a continuum. No war is ever perfectly just. (Though I suppose some wars are very nearly perfectly unjust.)
If we agree on that point, I will concede that the Iraq war would have moved along the continuum toward “justice” if it were not for Guantanamo.
Mind you, the problem wasn’t limited to any one place. The Bush Administration’s practice of torture has been far more widespread than the public understands:
That’s a quote from a book by Andrew Sullivan, The Conservative Soul, pp. 167-68. But note, Sullivan claims the information comes from the US government’s own reports. Torture was not carried out by rogue actors, but by soldiers who received a message from on high: Detainees have no rights; anything goes.
Second: I agree with your general thesis: just war principles can equip us to evaluate where a given war falls on that continuum between justice and injustice.
But in practice, the theory is ineffectual. No government ever refrained from going to war because they took a careful look at just war principles and said, “We can’t go to war — it wouldn’t be just.”
That, in a nutshell, is my objection to the concept. Kings and Presidents determine, on whatever grounds, that they want to go to war. Just war principles don’t enter into the decision. The only effect the principles have is to justify war once the Ruler has made up his mind on unrelated grounds.
Third: I am increasingly convinced that Christians should speak against war, and let non-Christians make the case for war.
I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and state. I do not think the Church should attempt to control events. But I think there are plenty of actors within the state who will be only too happy to formulate the argument for going to war. And I think we should cede that role to them.
Someone has to uphold the other end of the debate. Why shouldn’t it be the Church, with the example of Jesus Christ sketched vividly before her very eyes? What business is it of the Church to advocate war despite the inevitable “collateral damage” — i.e., dead civilians?
Surely the mission of the Church is one of peace and reconciliation. If the state wields the sword with God’s blessing, then let the state take responsibility for the dirty work of war.
You write,
I still think [just war theory] is the best we’ve got, for all its imperfections, if we want to live in the real world.
Maybe we shouldn’t try to live in the “real” world, but in the world as God sees it. Maybe the Church should take a stand for the ideals of Christ.
Frankly, I find it deeply disturbing that my anti-war position causes such a reaction: that Christians come out of the woodwork to argue in support of war. Is this really our role? Is it what we want to be known for, and associated with?
December 31st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Stephen,
Thanks for the detailed response. I promise I wasn’t attacking your position. I only stumbled over your argument with John towards the end of writing this piece as a follow up to on of the 39 article posts. So overlap is synergy not purpose!
I agree with you that theory or moral judgement often has little to do with why people go to war, and this remains a stumbling block to any consideration of just wars.
I’m thinking of responding on the church-state separation thing separately - I don’t find it as simple as it appears.
My biggest problem with identifying the church solely with anti-war arguments is that I think it creates appeasement in place of peace, and hamstrings any possible participation by Christians willing to be guided by their faith in high-level politics.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
[...] me to end the year by stirring things up a little. In a recent comment Stephen appealed to the separation of church and state in the way that many people do: as though it [...]
December 31st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Doug, you claim that anti-war argument
But, as I started to argue in the previous thread on this issue, I see this clam to be not only untrue but absurd. Why is it impossible for anti-war Christians (or non-Christians for that matter) to get involved in high-level politics? Are you suggesting that only people who agree with you can participate in politics? I hope not, but otherwise your claim makes no sense at all.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Please quote this in full: I said that identifying the church with an anti-war position (i.e. a general one as a matter of policy, not opposition to any particular war) hamstrings Christian participation in high-level (e.g. Cabinet) politics. That is nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me: it is an observation that no-one will ever elect a government that is automatically and absolutely against any and all war, and no-one who held such a position as a matter of inviolate principle would be able to obtain high office.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Doug, thanks for the clarification. I hadn’t realised that you were referring to the whole church, rather than individual Christians, taking an anti-war position. Well, if that makes it difficult for the church to get involved in politics, that is an excellent side benefit, as the church should not be so involved.
That is an extremely strong prediction you are making, if you intend it to apply to all countries ever. I can only assume that you hold to a very high doctrine of the total depravity of humanity and the impossibility of more than a small proportion of any population doing anything other than evil.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
No offence taken, Doug. And I should say that my closing paragraph wasn’t directed at you, personally, because you’re not championing militarism and torture. You’re thinking in terms of realpolitik, and I understand the merits of that perspective.
Your point about electoral politics is thought-provoking. I’m not convinced it would prevent a pacifist from participating in government, even at the ministerial level. A party might diminish its electoral prospects if they made a pacifist Minister of Defense. But merely to have a pacifist within government should not be a deal-breaker.
But it does raise the question of whether a party would be wise to choose a pacifist as its presidential candidate.
However, I think Peter is right: it wouldn’t necessarily be a problem everywhere in the world. Here in Canada, I think voters would elect a party with a pacifist leader.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 am
[...] War, what is it good for? According to John Hobbins, “The larger question is, who decides what war means? Those who refuse to fight it, or those who do?” In a similar vein, following John’s but developed independently, Doug Chaplin’s Justice in war and the love of neighbor. [...]