What Does the Bible Say About War?

What Does the Bible Say About War?

Frequently Asked Questions

• Did God tell the Israelites to go to war?
• What is the Bible's position on nuclear weapons?
• Should my country intervene in foreign wars?
• Should my country go to war to remove a foreign dictator?
• How can God be a God of love when He commanded wars, genocide and other barbaric actions in the Old Testament?
• Should a Christian enlist in the military?
• Should a Christian be a conscientious objector?
• Should a Christian be a pacifist?

Contents

Biblical References

Just War Theory

Christian Pacifism

Church Positions on War

Biblical References

Old Testament

In early Old Testament times war was often seen as a holy war, a conflict initiated and led by God. Such a war was declared by God, Himself (Exodus 17:16; Numbers 31:1-3, 1 Samuel 15:1-3), and every facet of war had religious significance. Sacrificial rites were performed to ensure God's continued support (1 Samuel 7:8-10; 13:9). The sacred ark of the covenant, symbolizing the presence of God, was often taken into battle (1 Samuel 4:3).

Later in Israel's history, the prophets began to see the terror of war as God's judgment against his people for their sins, and the glory of war faded (Habakkuk 1:5-11, Jeremiah 21:3-7). Israel began to look to the day when the endless cycle of war would be broken:

The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (NIV, Isaiah 2:3-4)

New Testament

In the New Testament, war is universally seen as evil and Jesus emphasized peace instead. He advised us to avoid retaliation and revenge and to extend our love even to our enemies.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. (NIV, Matthew 5:38-45)

The apostle Paul and other New testament writers echoed Jesus' sentiment and expanded on it.

Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NAS, Romans 12:17-21)

Despite the immense evil of war, Jesus said it is inevitable that wars will continue until He returns (Mark 13:7-8), and He did not oppose earthly governments or their right to maintain armies (Matthew 8:5-10). Other New Testament passages accept the necessity of maintaining armies and the worthiness of military occupations (Luke 3:14, Acts 10:1-6)

Just War Theory

Clearly, the Christian ideal is total elimination of war and brotherly love among all people. However, in this imperfect world, war may be forced on those who do not desire it. Christian theologians St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) are primarily responsible for formulating the theory of the Just War which has remained the majority Christian approach to war to this day. There are many variations on the just war theory, but these are the basics:

• There must be a just cause for the war.
  • War must be waged only in response to certain, grave and lasting damage inflicted by an aggressor.
  • The motive for war must be advancement of good or avoidance of evil.
  • The ultimate objective of war must be to bring peace.
  • Revenge, revolt, a desire to harm, dominate, or exploit and similar things are not justification for war.
• Every possible means of peacefully settling the conflict must be exhausted first.
• There must be serious prospects of success; bloodshed without hope of victory cannot be justified.
• The war must be declared by a legitimate authority. Private individuals or groups should seek redress of their rights through their governments, not by acts of war.
• The war must not cause greater evil than the evil to be eliminated.
• Non-combatants (civilians) must not be intentionally harmed.
• Prisoners and conquered peoples must be treated justly.

Christian Pacifism

Pacifism, the opposition to all war, is a minority view throughout Christianity, but is the dominant belief in some denominations such as Mennonite and Society of Friends (Quakers). Pacifists take their example from Jesus who never resisted His persecutors. When the mob came to arrest Jesus, one of His followers tried to defend Him with a sword. But Jesus said,

"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." (NAS, Matthew 26:52-53)

Many of Jesus' apostles and other followers were also martyred for their faith, but never used violence to resist their fate.

Another justification for pacifism is the belief that the kingdom of God is set apart from the world (Matthew 5:20, 7:13-14,John 18:36). The world will continue in sin of all kinds, including war (Matthew 24:6-7, Mark 13:7-8), but those who truly belong to the kingdom of God are called to put their total trust in God (Matthew 10:28, John 14:1) and to obey all of Jesus' teachings (Matthew 7:21, 28:18-20, Luke 6:46, John 14:15, 15:10), including His teachings against violence.

A number of other Bible passages are cited in favor of the pacifist position, including Matthew 5:9, Romans 12:18-19,2 Corinthians 10:3-4, 1 Peter 2:21-23, 3:8-11, 13-17, and Hebrews 10:32-34.

A frequent criticism of pacifism is that it amounts to surrender to aggression, and the evil which results could be much worse than the evil of a war. Another criticism is that pacifism is utopian, and pacifists unfairly reap the benefits of freedom earned by those willing to sacrifice their lives in war. However, pacifists reply that pacifism does not mean being passive; it is active peacemaking through nonviolent means. They point to the success of nonviolent resistance movements such as the Swedish and Danish resistance to Nazism in World War II, Gandhi's independence movement in India, the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King in the United States, and the Solidarity labor movement in Poland. Many Christian pacifists see nonviolence as the only way to alleviate the vicious cycles of oppression, hatred, war and revenge that have dominated human history.

Church Positions on War

Here are the official positions on war of the three largest Christian denominations in the United States:

Roman Catholic

2307. The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.

2308. All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.

2309. 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.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310. Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

2311. Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

2312. The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."

2313. Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314. "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315. The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316. The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317. Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
From Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, copyright © 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc., http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm

Southern Baptist

XVI. Peace and War. It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.

The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 5:9,38-48; 6:33; 26:52; Luke 22:36,38; Romans 12:18-19; 13:1-7; 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; James 4:1-2. Adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention June 14, 2000. From http://www.sbc.net/2000_comparative_report.html

United Methodist

War and Peace

We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as a usual instrument of national foreign policy and insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them; that human values must outweigh military claims as governments determine their priorities; that the militarization of society must be challenged and stopped; that the manufacture, sale, and deployment of armaments must be reduced and controlled; and that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons be condemned. Consequently, we endorse general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church--2000, ¶165C. Copyright 2000 by The United Methodist Publishing House, http://www.umc.org/abouttheumc/policy/world/c-warpeace.htm

Military Service

We deplore war and urge the peaceful settlement of all disputes among nations. From the beginning, the Christian conscience has struggled with the harsh realities of violence and war, for these evils clearly frustrate God's loving purposes for humankind. We yearn for the day when there will be no more war and people will live together in peace and justice. Some of us believe that war, and other acts of violence, are never acceptable to Christians. We also acknowledge that most Christians regretfully realize that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide. We honor the witness of pacifists who will not allow us to become complacent about war and violence. We also respect those who support the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is clear beyond reasonable doubt, and through appropriate international organizations. We urge the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs as a means of elimination of war, violence, and coercion in these affairs.

We reject national policies of enforced military service as incompatible with the gospel. We acknowledge the agonizing tension created by the demand for military service by national governments. We urge all young adults to seek the counsel of the Church as they reach a conscientious decision concerning the nature of their responsibility as citizens. Pastors are called upon to be available for counseling with all young adults who face conscription, including those who conscientiously refuse to cooperate with a system of conscription.

We support and extend the ministry of the Church to those persons who conscientiously oppose all war, or any particular war, and who therefore refuse to serve in the armed forces or to cooperate with systems of military conscription. We also support and extend the Church's ministry to those persons who conscientiously choose to serve in the armed forces or to accept alternative service.
From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church--2000, ¶164G. Copyright 2000 by The United Methodist Publishing House, http://www.umc.org/abouttheumc/policy/political/g-military.htm

Did Jesus teach pacifism? | Desiring God

Did Jesus teach pacifism? | Desiring God

JANUARY 23, 2006

Did Jesus teach pacifism?

---

• Article by Matt Perman
 
• Topic: War

The attacks of September 11 and the resulting war against terrorism have brought to the front once again the question of the Christian view of war. The question is particularly complex because it is hard to see how war can be consistent with the biblical emphasis upon forgiveness and forebearance and love. This emphasis is perhaps most pointed in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:39-44)

Does Jesus' teaching that we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies mean that it is always wrong to go to war? Should the world have turned the other cheek to Hitler and tried to love him into surrender? When Osama Ben Laden ordered the attack on the World Trade Center, should the U.S. have responded by sending him the Sears Tower as well? Or does Jesus allow a place for both loving our enemies and yet, in certain situations, using force to restrain life-threatening wickedness?

What follows are some of the primary reasons we believe that it is right for the military (and Christians who are a part of the military) to engage in wars that have just cause--namely, self-defense, the restraint of life-threatening evil, and the punishment of nations and individuals who have committed unjust acts of war against one's country. This is called the just war theory. We will close by seeking to explain how this fits with the command to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and not resist him who is evil.

Pacifism is harmful
To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups, it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). It is true that war itself is harmful and tragic; but pacifism would result in even more harm to the world because it would give wicked people virtually free reign. We of course must be open to letting the Bible transform our moral sentiments, but this observation should at least cause us to pause and reflect more deeply before concluding that Jesus is intending to teach pacifism.

Consistent pacifism would have to eliminate the police, not just the military
In fact, if we were to conclude that governments should always turn the other cheek and never resist evil, then we would be logically committing ourselves to getting rid of not only the armed forces, but also the police force and criminal justice system. For police officers arrest criminals, using force against them if necessary, and put them in jail. That is not turning the other cheek. Does Jesus intend his command to turn the other cheek to apply to the police? Surely not as their primary way of responding to evil. God does not want evil to run about in our society unchecked (cf. in the OT the numerous civil laws and in the NT Romans 13, to be discussed below). If one accepts the legitimacy of police using force in some instances, there can be no objection to the military using force in some instances, either.

Luke 3:14 allows military service
It is significant that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to leave the military when they asked him what it meant to repent: "And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, 'And what about us, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). Since it is, therefore, possible to live a godly life and yet be in the military, it must be because engaging in war is not always sinful.

John 18:36 acknowledges the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms
In this passage, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, we are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

Romans 13:3-4 grants governments the right to use force to restrain and punish evil
Paul writes: "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Here Paul affirms the government's right to use force in two ways. First, he says that it "does not bear the sword for nothing." Second, he states that government is a "minister of God" when it executes vengeance against evildoers.

Governments, of course, do not have the right to use force for any purpose whatsoever. They do not have the right to use force in order to lord it over their citizens and impose unnecessary restraints upon freedom. There are two purposes for which this text says the government is justified in using force: the restraint of evil and the punishment of evil. The purpose of force is not just to prevent further evil from happening, but to punish evil acts by bringing the perpetrators to justice. Government is acting as a "minister of God" when it serves as "an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Does the right of the sword in this text extend to the case of war? The immediate context does have in mind the use of physical force in regard to a government's owncitizens. But by extension this also implies that if one nation commits an act of war against another nation, the offended nation has the right to engage in self-defense and to avenge the wrong. Would it be consistent to say that a nation has a right to restrain and punish evil committed against it by its own citizens, but not to restrain and punish evil committed against it by another nation? The mere fact that the civil offense was committed by another country does not remove their accountability to the country they attacked.

1 Peter 2:13-4 confirms the teaching of Romans 13:3-4
In 1 Peter 2:13-14, we are taught: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." Once again, the right of governments to punish evil is affirmed.

Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war?
Since the Scriptures teach that it is right for a nation to engage in a just war, it follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight in such a war. Some have argued that non-Christians may fight in wars but believers may not, but this distinction is not found in Scripture. Scripture teaches that it is not sin for a government to engage in a just war, and there is therefore nothing that forbids Christian from being involved in just wars.

Church and state must be distinguished
It is very important, however, to remember here the distinction between church and state. The Christian fights in a war not as an ambassador of the church or on behalf of the church, but as an ambassador of his country. The church is not to use violence (John 18:36), but the government at times may (John 18:36; Romans 13:3-4; etc.). So the Christian fights not as an agent of the church, but as an agent of the government of his country. Both are ultimately under the authority of God, but each has a distinct role.

What about turning the other cheek?
What, now, are we to make of Jesus' radical commands in Matthew 5:39-41? "Do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two." How does this fit with what we have seen above?

First, we need to clarify what the problem is not. The problem is not that Jesus appears to be telling us to lie down and let evil overtake us. That is clearly not what he is saying. Instead, he is telling us what it looks like "not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). We have all seen the wisdom of Jesus' words here in our everyday lives. Much of the time, the most effective way to overcome evil is by not resisting. If someone says a mean word, it is far more effective to respond with kindness than with another mean word in return. If someone tries wrongly to cut you off on the freeway, it is usually best just to let them do it. If we would learn these principles, our lives would be much more peaceful and, ironically, we would be vindicated more often.

So the problem is not that it looks as though Jesus is telling us to let evil steam-roll over us. The problem is that it looks like Jesus is telling us that the only way we should ever seek to overcome evil is by letting it go and responding with kindness. It looks as though he leaves no place for using force in resisting evil.

Part of the answer to this difficulty lies in understanding the hyperbolic nature of much of the Sermon on the Mount. I don't think that Jesus is telling us never to respond to evil with force (such as in self-defense) or always to literally turn the other cheek when we are slapped any more than his command later in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:6 means that we should only pray when we are completely alone or his command in 5:29 means that some should literally gouge out their eyes. Jesus himself drove the thieves away from the temple with a whip (John 2:15) and Paul at times insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 25:11; cf. also the interesting instance of 16:35-40). Jesus is using hyperbole to illustrate what ourprimary disposition and attitude should be, not to say that we should literally give in to every attempt to do evil against us. That is part of the answer.

The main part of the answer, however, lies in remembering that Jesus is speaking primarily to individuals. He is not mainly addressing governments here, but is primarily speaking at the personal level. This text, then, shows that an individual'sprimary response to evil should be to "turn the other cheek," while the other texts we have seen (e.g., Romans 13:3-4) show that government's God-given responsibility is to punish those who commit civil crimes (murder, terrorism, acts of war, etc.). While it is sometimes appropriate even for individuals to use self-defense, it is never appropriate for individuals to seek to punish others. But it is right, however, for governments both to take measures of self-defense and to execute retribution.

There are, in other words, various "spheres" of life. God has willed that some spheres include responsibilities that are not necessarily included in other spheres. Personally, it would be wrong for us to execute retribution on people who harm us. 

But passages like Romans 13:3-4 and John 18:36 show that Jesus is not denying governments the right to execute retribution on evildoers. Therefore, when a Christian is under the authority of the government and authorized to fight in a just war on the nation's behalf, it is appropriate for him to fight. For he is not fighting as a private individual, but as a representative of the government to which God has given the power of the sword.

In doing so, a Christian soldier should strive to love one's opponents in war as people, remembering that he opposes them as agents of the opposing government/system, not as private individuals. When at war, we need to look at people in the opposing army/terrorist group at two levels--the private, and governmental/public. Because of the private level, the soldier should pray for and love the opposing soldiers. And because of the public level, the soldier fights against them--not as private individuals, but as public representatives of the system and evil that is being opposed. That distinction, I am sure, would be hard to maintain in battle. Neither would it remove the pain and difficulty of being involved in fighting against other human beings. But it is perhaps a faint reflection of how the personal and governmental spheres overlap and involve one another while still remaining distinct.

Further Resources

John Piper, "Terrorism, Justice, and Loving Our Enemies"

Robert Clouse, ed., War: Four Christian Views.

John Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, chapter 13, "The Christian and War"

Norman Geisler,Christian Ethics, chapter 12, "War"

© Desiring God Foundation. Distribution Guidelines

Just war theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just war theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just war theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just war theory (jus bellum iustum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied bytheologians, ethicists, policy makers, and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: ‘the right to go to war’ (jus ad bellum) and ‘right conduct in war’ (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war and the second with moral conduct within war.^[1] Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory - jus post bellum - dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction.

Just War theory postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option. There may be responsibilities so important, atrocities that can be prevented or outcomes so undesirable they justify war.^[2]

Contents

• 1 Origins
  • 1.1 Pre-Christian
  • 1.2 Saint Augustine
  • 1.3 Thomas Aquinas
  • 1.4 School of Salamanca
  • 1.5 Just War Doctrine
  • 1.6 Formally described Just War
• 2 Criteria of Just War theory
  • 2.1 Jus ad bellum
  • 2.2 Jus in bello
• 3 Official positions
  • 3.1 World War I
• 4 Ending a war: Jus post bellum
• 5 Alternative theories
• 6 List of just war theorists
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 Further reading
• 10 External links

Origins[edit]

Pre-Christian[edit]

The Indian epic, the Mahabharata, offers one of the first written discussions of a 'just war'. In it, one of five ruling brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified, and then a long discussion ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality (chariots cannot attack cavalry, only other chariots, no attacking people in distress), just means (no poisoned or barbed arrows), just cause (no attacking out of rage), and fair treatment of captives and the wounded.^[3] The war in Mahabharata is preceded by context that develops the "just cause" for the war including last minute efforts to reconcile differences to avoid war. At the beginning of the war, there is the discussion of "just conduct" appropriate to the context of war. 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.^[4] War was always potentiallynefas, ("wrong, forbidden") and risked religious pollution and divine disfavor.^[5] A just war (bellum iustum) thus required a ritualized declaration by the fetial priests.^[6] 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.^[7] The quintessential explanation of just war theory in the ancient world is found in Cicero's De Officiis, Book 1, sections 1.11.33–1.13.41

Christian theory of the just war begins with Augustine of Hippo^[8] and Thomas Aquinas.^[9]

Saint Augustine[edit]

Augustine of Hippo, generally considered one of the greatest Christian theologians, was one of the first to assert that a Christian could be a soldier and serve God and country honorably. He claimed that, while individuals should not resort immediately to violence, God has given the sword to government for good reason (based upon Romans 13:4). InContra Faustum Manichaeum book 22 sections 69-76, Augustine argues that Christians as part of government should not be ashamed to protect peace and punish wickedness.

Augustine asserted that this was a personal, philosophical stance:

"What is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart."^[10]

Nonetheless, he asserted, peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence would be a sin. Defense of one's self or others could be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate 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."^[11]

While not breaking down the conditions necessary for war to be just, Augustine nonetheless originated the very phrase itself in his work The City of God:

"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."^[12]

For the individual Christian under the rule of a government engaged in an immoral war, Augustine admonished that Christians, "by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and [should] seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible."^[13]

Thomas Aquinas[edit]

Nine hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas — an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism — used the authority of Augustine's arguments as he laid out the conditions under which a war could be just:^[14]

• First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
• Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace.)
• Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.^[15] (Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention.)

School of Salamanca[edit]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2015)

Growing from Aquinas arguments was the School of Salamanca, which expanded on Thomistic understanding of natural law and just war. Given that war is one of the worst evils suffered by mankind, the adherents of the School reasoned that it ought to be resorted to only when it was necessary in order to prevent an even greater evil. A diplomatic agreement is preferable, even for the more powerful party, before a war is started. Examples of "just war" are:

• In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success.
• Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.
• War to punish a guilty enemy.

A war is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:

• It is necessary that the response be commensurate with the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
• Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If thepeople oppose a war, then it is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose a government that is waging, or is about to wage, an unjust war.
• Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.
• It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.

Under this doctrine expansionist wars, wars of pillage, wars to convert infidels or pagans, and wars for glory are all inherently unjust.

Just War Doctrine[edit]

The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church - sometimes mistaken as a "just war theory"^[16][17] - found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":^[18]

• 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).

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the Just War Doctrine in paragraphs 500 to 501:^[19]

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation to do everything possible “to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world”. It is important to remember that “it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”.

The Charter of the United Nations, born from the tragedy of the Second World War with the intention of preserving future generations from the scourge of war, is based on a generalized prohibition of a recourse to force to resolve disputes between States, with the exception of two cases:

 legitimate defence and measures taken by the Security Council within the area of its responsibilities for maintaining peace. In every case, exercising the right to self-defence must respect “the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality”.

Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions. 

International legitimacy for the use of armed force, on the basis of rigorous assessment and with well-founded motivations, can only be given by the decision of a competent body that identifies specific situations as threats to peace and authorizes an intrusion into the sphere of autonomy usually reserved to a State.

Formally described Just War[edit]

The first work dedicated specifically to it was De bellis justis of Stanisław of Skarbimierz (1360-1431), who justified war by the Kingdom of Poland with Teutonic Knights.^{[citation needed]} Francisco de Vitoriacriticized the conquest of America by the Kingdom of Spain on the basis of just war theory.^{[citation needed]} With Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius just war theory was replaced byinternational law theory, codified as a set of rules, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications.^[20] The importance of the theory of just war faded with the revival ofclassical republicanism beginning with works of Thomas Hobbes.

Although the criticism can be made that the application of just war theory is relativistic, one of the fundamental bases of the tradition is the Ethic of Reciprocity, particularly when it comes to in belloconsiderations of deportment during battle. If one set of combatants promise to treat their enemies with a modicum of restraint and respect, then the hope is that other sets of combatants will do similarly in reciprocation, (a concept not unrelated to the considerations of Game Theory).

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 to determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just war theories are attempts "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 peaceand justice".^[21]

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).^[22] In more recent years, a third category — jus post bellum — has been added, which governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals.

Anarcho-capitalist scholar Murray Rothbard stated: "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 isunjust, 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."^[23]

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 A.D. 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.^[24]

Criteria of Just War theory[edit]

Part of a series about
War
History Prehistoric Ancient Medieval Early modern Industrial Modern Fourth-generation warfare
Battlespace Air Cyber Information Land Sea Space
Weapons Armor Artillery Biological Cavalry Chemical Conventional Cyber Electronic Infantry Nuclear Psychological Unconventional
Tactics Aerial Battle Cavalry Charge Counter-attack Counter-insurgency Cover Foxhole Guerrilla warfare Morale Siege Tactical objective Trench warfare
Operational Blitzkrieg Deep battle Maneuver warfare Operational manoeuvre group
Strategy Attrition Counter-offensive Deception Defensive Goal Naval Offensive
Grand strategy Containment Economic warfare Limited war Military science Philosophy of war Strategic studies Total war
Organization Command and control Doctrine Education and training Engineers Intelligence Ranks Staff Technology and equipment
Logistics Materiel Supply chain management
Related Asymmetric warfare Broken-Backed War Theory Cold war Irregular warfare Law of war Mercenary Military campaign Military operation Network-centric warfare Operations research Principles of war Proxy war Religious war Slavery Theater War crimes War film War novel Wartime sexual violence World war
Lists Battles Military occupations Operations Sieges War crimes Wars Weapons Writers
v t e

Just War Theory has two sets of criteria, the first establishingjus ad bellum (the right to go to war), and the second establishing jus in bello (right conduct within war).^[25]

Jus ad bellum[edit]

Main article: Jus ad bellum

Just cause

The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Comparative justice

While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Competent authority

Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".^[26]

Right intention

Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success

Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Last resort

Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

Proportionality

The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).

Jus in bello[edit]

Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:

Distinction

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatantscaught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no legitimate military targets, committing acts of terrorism and reprisal against civilians, and attacking neutral targets (e.g., the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor). Moreover, combatants are not permitted to attack enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat or who areparachuting from disabled aircraft (except airborne forces) or who are shipwrecked.

Proportionality

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a legitimate military objective. This principle is meant to discern the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act.

Military necessity

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of military necessity. An attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a legitimate military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

Fair treatment of prisoners of war

Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.

No means malum in se

Combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare that are considered evil, such as mass rape, forcing enemy combatants to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g., nuclear/biological weapons).

Official positions[edit]

World War I[edit]

In April 1917, two weeks after President Woodrow Wilsondeclared war on Germany, Cardinal James Gibbons of Baltimore, the de facto head of the U.S. Catholic church, issued a letter that all Catholics were to support the war.^[27]The Episcopal bishop of New York, William Manning said the following:

Our Lord Jesus Christ does not stand for peace at any price...Every true American would rather see this land face war than see her flag lowered in dishonor...I wish to say that, not only from the standpoint of a citizen, but from the standpoint of a minister of religion...I believe there is nothing that would be of such great practical benefit to us as universal military training for the men of our land.

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. And the Pacifism which takes the position that because war is evil, therefore all who engage in war, whether for offense or defense, are equally blameworthy, and to be condemned, is not only unreasonable, it is inexcusably unjust.^[28]

Ending a war: Jus post bellum[edit]

In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, war crimestrials, and war reparations. Orend, for instance, proposes the following principles:

Just cause for termination

A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.

Right intention

A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.

Public declaration and authority

The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.

Discrimination

The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Truth and reconciliation may sometimes be more important than punishing war crimes.

Proportionality

Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.

Alternative theories[edit]

• Militarism – Militarism is the belief that war is not inherently bad but can be a beneficial aspect of society.
• Realism – The core proposition of realism is a skepticism as to whether moral concepts such as justice can be applied to the conduct of international affairs. Proponents of realism believe that moral concepts should never prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behaviour. Instead, a state should place an emphasis on state security and self-interest. One form of realism – descriptive realism – proposes that states cannot act morally, while another form – prescriptive realism – argues that the motivating factor for a state is self-interest. Just wars that violate Just Wars principles effectively constitute a branch of realism.
• Revolution and Civil War – Just War Theory states that a just war must have just authority. To the extent that this is interpreted as a legitimate government, this leaves little room for revolutionary war or civil war, in which an illegitimate entity may declare war for reasons that fit the remaining criteria of Just War Theory. This is less of a problem if the "just authority" is widely interpreted as "the will of the people" or similar. Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions side-steps this issue by stating that if one of the parties to a civil war is a High Contracting Party (in practice, the state recognised by the international community,) both Parties to the conflict are bound "as a minimum, the following [humanitarian] provisions". Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention also makes clear that the treatment of prisoners of war is binding on both parties even when captured soldiers have an "allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power".
• Nonviolent struggle – The "just war" criterion of "last resort" requires believers to look for alternative means of conflict. The methods of nonviolent action permit the waging of political struggle without resort to violence. Historical evidence and political theory can be examined to determine whether nonviolent struggle can be expected to be effective in future conflicts. If nonviolent action is determined effective, then the requirements for "just war" are not met.^[29]
• Absolutism – Absolutism holds that there are various ethical rules that are absolute. Breaking such moral rules is never legitimate and therefore is always unjustifiable.

A "just war" – if there could be such a thing – would not require conscription. Volunteers would be plentiful.

Ben Salmon, An Open Letter to President Wilson (October 14, 1919)

• Pacifism – Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unacceptable and/or pragmatically not worth the cost. Pacifists extend humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants, especially conscripts. For example, Ben Salmonbelieved all war to be unjust. He was sentenced to death during World War I (later commuted to 25 years hard labor) for desertion and spreading propaganda.^[30]
• Right of self-defence – The theory of self-defence based on rational self-interest maintains that the use of retaliatory force is justified against repressive nations that break the non-aggression principle. In addition, if a free country is itself subject to foreign aggression, it is morally imperative for that nation to defend itself and its citizens by whatever means necessary. Thus, any means to achieve a swift and complete victory over the enemy is imperative. This view is prominently held by Objectivists.^[31]
• Consequentialism – The moral theory most frequently summarized in the words "the end justifies the means", which tends to support the just war theory (unless the just war causes less beneficial means to become necessary, which further requires worst actions for self-defense with bad consequences).

List of just war theorists[edit]

This list needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2014)(Learn how and when to remove this template message) Cicero (106 BC–43 BC) Ambrose (337/340–397) St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430)[13] Gratian (Christian) (12th century) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) Stanislaw of Skarbimierz(1360–1431) Francisco de Vitoria (1492–1546) Francisco Suarez (1548–1617) Alberico Gentili (1552–1608) Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) Samuel Pufendorf (1632–1694) John Locke (1632–1704) Emerich de Vattel (1714–1767) John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) Paul Tillich (1886–1965) George Barry O'Toole (1886–1944) Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971) H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962) Meher Baba[32] (1894–1969) Paul Ramsey (1913–1988) John Rawls (1921–2002) Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) Michael Quinlan (1930–2009) Michael Novak (1933–) Michael Walzer (1935–) Ron Paul (1935–) Robert L. Holmes (1935–) Edwin Frederick O'Brien(1939–) Jean Bethke Elshtain (1941–2013) Oliver O'Donovan (1945–) Louis Iasiello (1950–) George Weigel (1951–) Jeff McMahan (1954–) Brian Orend (1970–)

See also[edit]

• Perpetual war
• Use of force by states
• Jihad fi-sabilillah, just war in the Islamic tradition

References[edit]

1. ^ Guthrie, Charles; Quinlan, Michael (26 Sep 2007). "III: The Structure of the Tradition". Just War: The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. pp. 11–15. ISBN 978-0747595571.
2. ^ Guthrie, Charles; Quinlan, Michael (26 Sep 2007). "III: The Structure of the Tradition". Just War: The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. pp. 11–15. ISBN 978-0747595571.
3. ^ "Just War in Comparative Perspective". Retrieved 25 April 2015.
4. ^ Livy 9.1.10; Cicero, Divinatio in Caecilium 63; De provinciis consularibus 4; Ad Atticum VII 14, 3; IX 19, 1; Pro rege Deiotauro 13; De officiis I 36; Philippicae XI 37; XIII 35; De re publica II 31; III 35; Isidore of Seville, Origines XVIII 1, 2; Modestinus, Libro I regolarum = Digesta I 3, 40; E. Badian,Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic (Ithaca 1968, 2nd ed.), p.11.
5. ^ William Warde Fowler, The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic (London 1925), pp. 33ff.; M. Kaser, Das altroemische Ius (Goettingen 1949), pp. 22ff; P. Catalano, Linee del sistema sovrannazionale romano (Torino 1965), pp. 14ff.; W. V. Harris, War and imperialism in Republican Rome, 327-70 B.C. (Oxford 1979), pp. 161 ff.
6. ^ Livy 1.32; 31.8.3; 36.3.9
7. ^ Cicero, De officiis 3.17.69; Marcia L. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (Brill, 1980), p. 150.
8. ^ Christians and War: Augustine of Hippo and the "Just War Theory" Archived November 28, 2006, at the Wayback Machine.
9. ^ Christians and War: Thomas Aquinas refines the "Just War" Theory Archived July 10, 2006, at theWayback Machine.
10. ^ Robert L. Holmes. "A Time For War?". ChristianityToday.com. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
11. ^ "City of God". Archived from the original on 25 July 2013. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
12. ^ "City of God". Archived from the original on 25 July 2013.
13. ^ ^a b Augustine: Political and Social Philosophy, §3-c "War and Peace - The Just War"
14. ^ Super User. "Catholic Education Resource Center". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved25 April 2015.
15. ^ Justo L. Gonzalez (1984). The Story of Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco.
16. ^ "The Day - Google News Archive Search". Retrieved 25 April 2015.
17. ^ "Lakeland Ledger - Google News Archive Search". Retrieved 25 April 2015.
18. ^ "CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2309". Retrieved 25 April 2015.
19. ^ "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church". Retrieved 25 April 2015.
20. ^ Gutman R, Rieff D. Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company; 1999
21. ^ "JustWarTheory.com". JustWarTheory.com. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
22. ^ "Home > Publications >". Eppc.org. 1998-09-01. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
23. ^ [1] This article is based on the talk given by the late Murray N. Rothbard at the Mises Institute’s Costs of War conference in Atlanta, May 1994. It was published in the book of the same name. The audio file of this talk can be found at mises.org: [2]
24. ^ Smith, Jonathan R. "Rethinking the Crusades". Catholic Education Resource Center.
25. ^ Childress, James F. (1978). "Just-War Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities, and Functions of Their Criteria". Theological Studies 39: 427–45.
26. ^ "Just War Theory". Retrieved 25 April 2015.
27. ^ John Dear (February 23, 2010). "Ben Salmon and the Army of Peace". National Catholic Reporter.
28. ^ C. T. Bridgeman (1962). A History of the Parish of Trinity Church in the City of New York: The rectorship of Dr. William Thomas Manning 1908 to 1921. p. 256.
29. ^ Sharp, Gene, "Beyond just war and pacifism: nonviolent struggle toward justice, freedom and peace" Ecumenical Review, April, 1996.
30. ^ Staff of the Catholic Peace Fellowship (2007). "The Life and Witness of Ben Salmon". Sign of Peace6.1 (Spring 2007).
31. ^ "'Just War Theory'" vs. American Self-Defence, by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein
32. ^ Baba, Meher (1995). Discourses. Myrtle Beach: Sheriar Press. pp. 68, 70. ISBN 978-1880619094.

Further reading[edit]

• Benson, Richard. "The Just War Theory: A Traditional Catholic Moral View", The Tidings (2006). Showing the Catholic view in three points, including John Paul II's position concerning war.
• Blattberg, Charles. Taking War Seriously. A critique of just war theory.
• Brough, Michael W., John W. Lango, Harry van der Linden, eds., Rethinking the Just War Tradition(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2007). Discusses the contemporary relevance of just war theory. Offers an annotated bibliography of current writings on just war theory.
• Butler, Paul (2002–2003). "By Any Means Necessary: Using Violence and Subversion to Change Unjust Law" 50. UCLA L. Rev.: 721.
• Evans, Mark (editor) Just War Theory: A Reappraisal (Edinburgh University Press, 2005)
• Fotion, Nicholas. War and Ethics (London, New York: Continuum, 2007). ISBN 0-8264-9260-6. A defence of an updated form of just war theory.
• Heindel, Max. The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers - Volume II (The Philosophy of War, World War I reference, ed. 1918), ISBN 0-911274-90-1 (Describing a philosophy of war and just war concepts from a Rosicrucian point of view)
• Khawaja, Irfan. Review of Larry May, War Crimes and Just War, in Democratiya 10, ([3]), an extended critique of just war theory.
• MacDonald, David Roberts. Padre E. C. Crosse and 'the Devonshire Epitaph': The Astonishing Story of One Man at the Battle of the Somme (with Antecedents to Today's 'Just War' Dialogue), 2007Cloverdale Books, South Bend. ISBN 978-1-929569-45-8
• Nájera, Luna. ""Myth and Prophecy in Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda’s Crusading "Exhortación", in Bulletin for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies, 35:1 (2011). Discusses Sepúlveda's theories of war in relation to the war against the Ottoman Turks.
• O'Donovan, Oliver. The Just War Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
• Ramsey, Paul. The Just War (New York: Scribners, 1969).
• Steinhoff, Uwe. On the Ethics of War and Terrorism (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007). Covers the basics and some of the most controversial current debates.
• v. Starck, Christian (Ed.). Kann es heute noch gerechte Kriege geben? (Göttingen: Wallstein-Verlag, 2008). ISBN 9783835302617
• Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. (New York: Basic Books, 1977). ISBN 0-465-03707-0
• Walzer, Michael. Arguing about War, (London: Yale University Press, 2004). ISBN 978-0-300-10978-8

External links[edit]

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Just war theory

• Just war theory entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Just War Theory Oregon State University
• Text of Cicero's Just War Theory in De Officiis
• Catholic Teaching Concerning Just War at Catholicism.org
• A Catholic Petition based on the Just War Doctrine
• Jeff McMahon, Rethinking the 'Just War,' Part 1, New York Times
• American Solidarity Party — New 3rd Party which applies Just War Theory in foreign policy