This Friday will mark the 75^th Anniversary of the formal acceptance by the Allies of World War II of Nazi Germany’s surrender.  Certainly, it was a day of great celebration as it put an end, at least on one front, massive carnage that saw nearly 3% of the total population of the Earth slaughtered in 6 short years.  What made it particularly destructive is that nearly twice as many civilians as soldiers died thanks to the “total war” tactics of things like genocide, fire bombing and atomic weapons.  Despite these great losses, many defend these actions even today under the ruse that “all is fair in love and war.”  This attitude was what allowed the great evils to occur and, if we are not careful, they will happen again.  Doomed to be repeated, that is, unless we are well schooled in Just War Doctrine.

Putting war within its proper context goes a long way in protecting us from committing evil.  To think that we can eliminate all war is nothing short of a utopic delusion.  The peace that the patron of Arcadia is seeking can only be brought about when there is justice.  As Augustine says, civil peace is the “tranquility of order.”  Order cannot be brought about without justice.  And justice requires at certain times the use of force.  In short, war can be a means of bringing about peace.

This connection between justice and peace is the foundation of the Just War Doctrine.  War can only be an instrument of peace when it is entered into for just reasons and when it is carried out in a just manner.  Based upon the need for and maintenance of justice, the Church has adopted the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, who himself borrowed heavily from Ss Ambrose and Augustine.  In essence, the doctrine consists of two groups of criteria to assess whether a country may go to war (jus ad bellum) and then how to act justly within war (jus in bello).

Jus ad Bellum

In his defense of Just War Doctrine, Aquinas first asks whether it is always a sin to go to war.  He answers in the negative but says it is only licit when the war itself is just based upon three core criteria, “First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged…Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault…Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil” (ST II-II q.40 art.1).

Because the civil authority has the obligation of securing peace any war must be called by the proper authority.  This seems rather common-sensical especially when we frame things in the context of peace.  Peace can only be brought about by the proper ordering of society, which includes the respect for the custodian of the Common Good.  When a nation as a whole is harmed, those tasked with its defense must seek recompense by going to those who have wronged them and demanding that justice be restored.  We shall return shortly to exactly how this recompense may be sought, but for the time being we must allow that war is a moral option.

Secondly, there must be a just cause.  There must be some gross violation of the law of nations on the part of the aggressor that merits a response using force.  As Augustine says, “ A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”

Finally, in order to be a just war, the country must engage in the war with the right intention.  The only right intention is peace, that is, the restoration of a just ordering of relations between nations.  There must be a desire merely to stop the aggressor and not necessarily to kill them, even though it may be necessary to do the latter in order to achieve the former.  This is why terms that require unconditional surrender are almost always unjust.  It goes beyond the desire for justice and vengeance creeps in.  In addition to vengeance, territorial expansion, the lust for power, etc. are all bad intentions.

Jus in Bello

It is not enough to merely enter into a war for just reasons, but it is also necessary to conduct the military campaign in a just manner.  With this in mind, the Tradition adds two criteria—proportionality and noncombatant immunity.  For any punishment to be just, there must always be a proportionality between the punishment and the offense.  This moral principle carries over into the Just War Doctrine and demands that any response that uses force must always be proportional to the wrong that has been done.  Likewise, there must always be a sharp line of distinction between combatants and non-combatants.  It is always unjust to target civilians as well as wounded soldiers and prisoners.  The moral prohibition against taking innocent life remains binding even in war.      

Prudential Criterion

In addition to the two groups of criteria, the Church also has proposed what might be considered as “prudential criteria.”  Summarizing the principles, the Catechism says:

“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

-there must be serious prospects of success;

-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.  

CCC 2309

For the sake of clarity, each of these criteria bears a further comment.

War must be Last Resort.  What this means is that all reasonable efforts to avoid the use of force have been exhausted.  This does not mean that each of the nonmilitary alternatives have been tried (diplomatic, economic, political), but that the military option is the last one considered.  It is obviously unreasonable to continually apply different economic sanctions when there is no reasonable expectation of success.  It might also be that some grave humanitarian crisis emerges that requires an immediate response.

Military intervention must also have a reasonable chance of success.  To enter into a military conflict or to continue in one when it is hopeless would only serve to multiply the evils already present.  Many Just War theorists also add the need to formally declar war because it opens the way for the opponent’s surrender and keeps war from being a private affair.  In this way it may actually keep war from happening.

While the jus ad bellum criterion only apply to offensive wars, that is, they represent the questions that must be answered before a country chooses to go to war.  This step obviously is skipped when they are fighting a defensive war.  What often happens though is that when a war is defensive, the jus in bello are ignored because there is a perceived justification (rationalization) to respond with vengeance.  That the Allies were justified in declaring war on the Axis powers during World War II is quite clear, but this does not mean that everything the Allies did was just.  In particular, the practice of “fire bombing” entire German cities lacked both proportionality and discrimination.  We will visit this question another time, but likewise the use of the Atomic Bomb was a gross violation of Just War behavior.