2016/04/28

What Does the Bible Say About War?

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

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 17:16Numbers 31:1-31 Samuel 15:1-3), and every facet of war had religious significance. Sacrificial rites were performed to ensure God's continued support (1 Samuel 7:8-1013:9). 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 1:5-11Jeremiah 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 3:14Acts 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 5:207:13-14,John 18:36). The world will continue in sin of all kinds, including war (Matthew 24:6-7Mark 13:7-8), but those who truly belong to the kingdom of God are called to put their total trust in God (Matthew 10:28John 14:1) and to obey all of Jesus' teachings (Matthew 7:2128:18-20Luke 6:46John 14:1515:10), including His teachings against violence.
A number of other Bible passages are cited in favor of the pacifist position, including Matthew 5:9Romans 12:18-19,2 Corinthians 10:3-41 Peter 2:21-233:8-1113-17, 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


Did Jesus teach pacifism?


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 18:36Romans 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
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

正戦論 - Just War - Wikipedia

正戦論 - Wikipedia

正戦論


マイケル・ウォルツァー(2002年11月18日撮影)
正戦論(せいせんろん、英語Just War もしくは Just War Theory)とは、ローマ哲学カトリックに起源をもつ軍事に関する倫理上の原則・理論。西ヨーロッパにおいては「正しい戦争」「正しくない戦争」を区別することで、戦争の惨禍を制限する事を目指して理論構築がなされた。聖戦とは概念が重なる場面もあるが、多くは別枠で論じられる
本項は西ヨーロッパ(西方教会圏)における正戦論について説明する。


西欧における正戦理論の展開[編集]

発祥と思想家の系譜[編集]


グローティウス1631年に描かれた絵画)
西ヨーロッパにおける正戦論は、際限のない中世の戦争・暴力という状況から、戦ってもよい戦争と戦ってはいけない戦争を区別し、戦争・暴力の、行使・発生を制限する事を目指した知的営為から生まれたものであり、10世紀後半以降にこのような議論が活発となった。[1][2]
その際、神の命じた戦争の遂行を義務とする旧約聖戦観念と、ストア派ローマ法に由来する穏健で必要最小限度の暴力行使という原則を結びつけたアウグスティヌスの説が大きな影響力をもった。ただしアウグスティヌスは正戦論の創始者として数えられる事は多いものの、その正戦論は未完成なものだったとされる[3]14世紀までには西欧における正戦論について、一定のコンセンサスが成立した[1]
正戦論の系譜にある思想家の名としては、アウグスティヌスの他、トマス・アクィナスフーゴー・グローティウスなどが挙げられ、中でもグローティウスは重要な思想家と看做されている。マイケル・ウォルツァーは現代における正戦論の第一人者と目されている[3]。正戦論についての権威ある歴史学者ジェームズ・ターナー・ジョンソン(James Turner Johnson)によれば、正戦論の起源は古代ギリシャ・ローマにも求められ、アリストテレスキケロも正戦論の系譜に加えられるとされる[3]

法(jus)[編集]

的には、宗教的要素(キリスト教神学教会法)と、世俗的要素(復活させたローマ法騎士の戦闘における慣習ルール)が絡み合って成立。戦っても良い戦争の条件は「戦争のための法jus ad bellum)」で、交戦時の容認される戦い方は「戦争における法jus in bello)」で定められた[4]
戦争のための法jus ad bellum)」には、戦争が正しい戦争となるための条件が5つ挙げられている[4]
  1. 正しい理由(攻撃に対する防衛・攻撃者に対する処罰・攻撃者によって不正に奪われた財産の回復)の存在
  2. 正統な政治的権威による戦争の発動
  3. 正統な意図や目的の存在
  4. 最後の手段としての軍事力の行使
  5. 達成すべき目的や除去すべき悪との釣り合い
教皇に戦争発動権があると主張する者達は、十字軍聖戦とみなし、「正しい理由」も3つとも満たした正戦であるとしていた。西欧キリスト教世界において、聖戦論は独自に発展したのではなく、正戦論の一環として議論されていた[4]
戦争における法jus in bello)」には、戦争が正しく行われるための条件を2つ定めている[4]
  1. 戦闘員と非戦闘員の区別(差別原則)
  2. 戦争手段と目標との釣り合い(釣り合い原則=不必要な暴力の禁止)
しかしこの"jus in bello"の遵守は十字軍兵士には求められなかった。西欧の「正戦論」はキリスト教世界内部における戦争の限界を定めたものであり、異教徒や異端者との戦争において遵守する義務が無く、特に「戦争における法」が無視される残虐な戦いが容認された[4]
しかし時を経て15世紀に入ると、北方十字軍として異教徒(時には非ローマカトリックの正教徒を対象に含んだ[5])に対する侵攻・殺戮・略奪を行っていたドイツ騎士修道会を、ポーランドのクラクフ大学学長パヴェウ・ヴウォトコヴィツ[6]コンスタンツ公会議において指弾し、教皇主義の立場から異教徒の権利を擁護した(コンスタンツ公会議1416年[7]。その後、16世紀にはバルトロメ・デ・ラス・カサスが異教徒であるインディオへのスペインによる虐殺・圧政を非難した事例(バリャドリッド論争1550年~)も出て来た。

正戦と聖戦[編集]


マクデブルクの戦いを描いた絵画。三十年戦争で行われた残虐を示す事例の一つ。
正戦論はできるだけ戦争を限定することにより、戦争の害悪を少なくしようとする理論であると捉えられる。一方、聖戦は非限定戦争になる蓋然性が高くなる[8]
ジョンソンによれば、聖戦(宗教戦争)には以下4つの特徴がある[8]
  1. 神による直接的、あるいは特別な人間や制度を通した間接的な命令で行われる
  2. 宗教の、防衛・拡大・社会秩序の確立を目的とする
  3. 宗教共同体と、それに属さない人々との間で行われる
  4. 戦うことが義務となっている
1番と2番は正戦論における「戦争発動の正当な権利と正当な理由」に相当するが、3番と4番は聖戦独自のものであり、これにより人員・資源の動因が容易になりやすく、聖戦は非限定戦争になりやすい。また聖戦は善と悪の戦いとなり、支配者がこのような絶対的価値にコミットしているために、相手との妥協が困難になり、交渉による戦争終結が難しくなって無制限な殲滅戦となりやすい[8]
16世紀宗教改革以降、西欧でも非限定戦争になる蓋然性が高い宗教戦争=聖戦が勃発していく。「ドイツが人口のほぼ3分の1を失った」「人類の歴史上最も残酷で破壊的な戦争の一つ」とされる[9]三十年戦争を経験した西欧では、その荒廃への反省から聖戦を否定し、主権国家体制から構成される西欧国際政治の枠組みが形成されるに至った[10]

限定戦争の展開[編集]

17世紀後半以降、限定戦争が行われるようになる。しかし「戦争における法」の「差別原則」が考慮されずにこの限定戦争は展開されたため、18世紀の戦争においては、戦闘地域以外の住民は戦争から大した被害を受けなかった一方で、戦闘地域の住民は大きな被害を受けた。第一次世界大戦が勃発するまでの戦争の特徴はこのようなものであった。残酷性・破壊性を持った例外は、共和国の防衛の為に喜んで命を捧げる、もしくはそれを求められる人間から構成される国民軍が登場し、絶対善の具体化を国民の多数が国家の中に見出した、フランス革命直後の戦争であった[11]
国家が掲げる「絶対善」を巡る戦争は第一次世界大戦までは封印されることとなった[12]

抽象的な善悪を巡る20世紀以降の戦争・紛争[編集]

第一次世界大戦の前に行われた例外的な全体戦争であるフランス革命直後の戦争は、自由民族性革命といった抽象的概念のために「全面的勝利を求めて国家のエネルギーの総力をもって行われる戦争」[13]としての「絶対戦争」(クラウゼヴィッツ)であり全体戦争であった。抽象的概念(イデオロギー)を掲げた戦争は、宗教戦争と残酷さにおいて異なるところはなかった[14]
しかしこの戦争以外、西ヨーロッパにおいては大規模な戦争は19世紀の間起きなかった。
他方、工業化の進展と近代国家の成立は、戦争の規模・破壊性を大きくする条件を生じさせた。戦争が起きた時の想定される被害の大きさに対する懸念から、ハーグ陸戦条約も締結された。この条約には伝統的正戦論における「戦争における法」が戦争法規として法典化された。こうした経緯は、伝統的な正戦論の復活とみることも出来る[15]
このように人道が国際法における原則に取り入れられていった時代であったにも関わらず、エリック・ホブズボームによれば、20世紀に行われた第一次世界大戦(開戦:1914年)は全体戦争(英語Total War)であった[15]
ジョンソンによれば、全体戦争には以下4つの特徴がある[14]
  1. 国民・社会・集団などの最も基本的な抽象的価値を守る事が戦争の正当な理由として掲げられる
  2. 戦争に対して集団のメンバーが全面的支援を行う
  3. 人的・物的資源を最大限動因する
  4. 戦闘における慣習的・法的・道義的抑制が無視される
このような全体戦争の勃発により、宗教戦争を否定した国際政治の舞台に、再度、善と悪という価値を巡る戦争が行われるようになった[14]。20世紀以降の紛争は、対テロ戦争も含めて抽象的な理念・価値を巡る対立を伴っており、「戦争における法」が無視される傾向にある。
このようにして、本来は「限定された戦争」であった「正戦」が、「正義のために戦わなければならない戦争」と考えられるようになっている[16]

キリスト教における事例[編集]

正戦論への批判[編集]

正戦論が戦争の限定化を志向したものであったとしても、正戦論が戦争の正当化に誤用・利用されている事を懸念する見解[21]、さらには正戦論そのものを批判し正戦論からの脱却を唱える見解も存在する[22]
また、正戦論は「正義」を「平和」よりも優先させる事態に生じると指摘し、非暴力主義・平和主義の立場からは、正戦論は目的による手段の正当化としての戦争肯定論に過ぎないと看做す見解もある[23]。特にアメリカ同時多発テロ事件以降に、アメリカによって行われる戦争が正戦論によって肯定されていく傾向に懸念を示す見解がある[23]

脚注[編集]

  1. a b 木村(2003: 110)
  2. ^ 主要参考文献『戦争批判の公共哲学』は一貫して「ヨーロッパ」と表記しているが、文脈上東欧を含んでおらず、キリスト教教会法についても西方教会に限定された内容記述となっているため、ここでは「西ヨーロッパ」もしくは「西欧」とした。
  3. a b c d War (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (英語)スタンフォード哲学百科事典
  4. a b c d e 木村(2003: 111)
  5. ^ 山内(1997: 178、201)
  6. ^ 山内(1997)は、初出箇所にのみ「パヴェウ・ヴウォトコヴィチ」とのポーランド式転写が記され、後は「パウルス・ウラディミリ」で通されている。
  7. ^ 山内(1997: 252-272)
  8. a b c 木村(2003: 112)
  9. ^ 引用元書籍は『戦争批判の公共哲学』113頁。ただし当書籍中でも引用である事が脚注に記されている。記された引用元はヘンリー・キッシンジャー著『外交 上』岡崎久彦監訳、日本経済新聞社、1996年、67頁
  10. ^ 木村(2003: 112-113)
  11. ^ 木村(2003: 114-115)
  12. ^ 木村(2003: 115)
  13. ^ 鍵括弧内引用元書籍は小林編・木村(2003: 121)。ただし当書籍中でも引用である事が脚注に記されている。記された引用元はマイケル・ハワード著『ヨーロッパ史と戦争』奥村房夫奥村大作訳、学陽書房、1981年、11頁
  14. a b c 木村(2003: 121)
  15. a b 木村(2003: 120)
  16. ^ 木村(2003: 126)
  17. a b ゴーマン(1990)
  18. a b c d e 信州夏期宣教講座(2009)
  19. ^ ハルナック、G.J.ケドゥックス、G.J.ヘリング、ジョン・ホルシュ、ハーシュバーガー、ポール・レムジー
  20. ^ 新要理書編纂特別委員会/編、日本カトリック司教協議会/監修(2003年)『カトリック教会の教え』403頁、カトリック中央協議会、ISBN 9784877501068
  21. ^ 佐々木寛新潟国際情報大学情報文化学部教授)「「正戦論」の乗り越え方
  22. ^ 西山俊彦カトリック司祭英知大学講師)「「神の国」と「地上の国」の平和主義-「正戦論」からの脱却を期待して」、『サピエンチア』 1995年2月(英知大学)
  23. a b 別所良美名古屋市立大学人文社会学部国際文化学科教授)「平和主義と正戦論―グローバル化と暴力の制御、あるいは「9・11」の衝撃―

参考文献[編集]

関連項目[編集]

外部リンク[編集]