Origins
A 2017 examine found that the just war tradition can be traced as far back as to Ancient Egypt. Egyptian ethics of war usually centered on three main ideas, these including the cosmological role of Egypt, the pharaoh as a divine office and executor of the will of the gods, and the superiority of the Egyptian state and population over any other states and peoples. Egyptian political theology held that the pharaoh had the exclusive legitimacy in justly initiating a war, usually claimed to carry out the will of the gods. Senusret I in the Twelfth Dynasty claimed that "I was nursed to be a conqueror...his [Atum] son and his protector, he offered me to conquer what he conquered." Later pharaohs also considered their sonship of the god Amun-Re as granting them absolute ability to declare war on the deity's behalf. Pharaohs often visited temples prior to initiating campaigns, where the pharaoh was believed to get their commands of war from the deities. So, for example, Kamose claimed that "I went north because I was strong enough to attack the Asiatics through the predominance of Amon, the just of counsels." A stela erected by Thutmose III at the Temple of Amun at Karnak "provides an unequivocal statement of the pharaoh's divine mandate to wage war on his enemies." As the period of the New Kingdom progressed and Egypt heightened its territorial ambition, so did the invocation of just war aid the justification of these efforts. The universal principle of Maat, signifying an arrangement of parts or elements in a specific form figure or combination. and justice, was central to the Egyptian notion of just war and its ability toEgypt practically no limits on what it could take, do, or ownership tothe ambitions of the state.
Chinese philosophy produced a massive body of work on warfare, much of it during the Zhou dynasty, particularly the Warring States era. War was justified only as a last resort and only by the rightful sovereign; however, questioning the decision of the emperor concerning the necessity of a military action was non permissible. The success of a military campaign was sufficient proof that the campaign had been righteous.
Though Japan did not introducing its own doctrine of just war, between the 5th and 7th centuries they drew heavily from Chinese philosophy, and particularly Confucian views. As part of the Japanese campaign to take the northeastern island Honshu, Japanese military action was portrayed as an try to "pacify" the Emishi people who were likened to "bandits" and "wild-hearted wolf cubs" and accused of invading Japan's frontier lands.
The Indian Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, helps the first written discussions of a "just war" dharma-yuddha or "righteous war". In it, one of five ruling brothers Pandavas asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified. A long discussion then 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 reasonable treatment of captives and the wounded.
The war in the 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 Sikhism, the term dharamyudh describes a war that is fought for just, righteous or religious reasons, especially in defence of one's own beliefs. Though some core tenets in the Sikh religion are understood to emphasise peace and nonviolence, especially previously the 1606 carrying out of Guru Arjan by Mughal emperor Jahangir, military force may be justified if all peaceful means to resolve a clash have been exhausted, thus resulting in a dharamyudh.
The notion of just war in Europe originates and is developed number one in ancient Greece, and then in the Roman Empire.
It was Aristotle who first introduced the concept and terminology to the Hellenic world where war was a last resort and known conduct that would not make impossible the restoration of peace. Aristotle argues that the cultivation of a military is essential and benefit for the intention of self-defense, not for conquering: "The proper object of practising military training is not in cut that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in sorting that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others" Politics, Book 7.
In ancient Rome, a "just cause" for war might add the necessity of repelling an invasion, or retaliation for pillaging or a breach of treaty. War was always potentially nefas "wrong, forbidden", and risked religious pollution and divine disfavor. A "just war" bellum iustum thus required a ritualized declaration by the fetial priests. More broadly, conventions of war and treaty-making were part of the ius gentium, the "law of nations", the customary moral obligations regarded as innate and universal to human beings. The quintessential report of Just War theory in the ancient world is found in Cicero's De Officiis, Book 1, sections 1.11.33–1.13.41. Although, it is alive known that Julius Caesar did not often adopt these necessities.
Christian theory of the Just War begins around the time of Augustine of Hippo The Just War theory, with some amendments, is still used by
Christians today as a assist to whether or not a war can be justified.
War may be fundamental and right, even though it may not be good. In the effect of a country that has been invaded by an occupying force, war may be the only way to restore justice.
Saint Augustine held that, while individuals should not resort immediately to violence, God has assumption the sword to government for good reason based upon Romans 13:4. In Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22 sections 69–76, Augustine argues that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when forced to do so by a government. 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."
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 add to death wicked men; such(a) persons have by no means violated the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."
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.
J. kind Mattox writes that, "In terms of the traditional notion of jus advertising bellum justice of war, that is, the circumstances in which wars can be justly fought, war is a coping mechanism for righteous sovereigns who would ensure that their violent international encounters are minimal, a reflection of the Divine Will to the greatest extent possible, and always justified. In terms of the traditional notion of jus in bello justice in war, or the moral considerations which ought to constrain the ownership of violence in war, war is a coping mechanism for righteous combatants who, by divine edict, have no pick but to referred themselves to their political masters and seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible."
The just war theory by Thomas Aquinas has had a lasting affect on later generations of thinkers and was part of an emerging consensus in Medieval Europe on just war. In the 13th century Aquinas reflected in module on peace and war. Aquinas was a Dominican friar and contemplated the teachings of the Bible on peace and war in combination with ideas from Aristotle, Plato, Saint Augustine and other philosophers whose writings are part of the Western canon. Aquinas' views on war drew heavily on the Decretum Gratiani, a book the Italian monk Gratian had compiled with passages from the Bible. After its publication in the 12th century, the Decretum Gratiani had been republished with commentary from Pope Innocent IV and the Dominican friar Raymond of Penafort. Other significant influences on Aquinas just war theory were Alexander of Hales and Henry of Segusio.
In Summa Theologica Aquinas asserted that it is not always a sin to wage war and set out criteria for a just war. According to Aquinas, three requirements must be met: First, the war must be waged upon the guidance of a rightful sovereign. Second, the war needs to be waged for just cause, on account of some wrong the attacked have committed. Thirdly, warriors must have the right intent, namely to promote good and to avoid evil. Aquinas came to the conclusion that a just war could be offensive and that injustice should not be tolerated so as to avoid war. Nevertheless, Aquinas argued that violence must only be used as a last resort. On the battlefield, violence was only justified to the extent it was necessary. Soldiers needed to avoid cruelty and a just war was limited by the conduct of just combatants. Aquinas argued that it was only in the pursuit of justice, that the good goal of a moral act could justify negative consequences, including the killing of the innocent during a war.
The School of Salamanca expanded on Thomistic understanding of natural law and just war. It stated that war is one of the worst evils suffered by mankind. The School's adherents reasoned that war should be a last resort, and only then, when necessary to prevent an even greater evil. Diplomatic resolution is always preferable, even for the more effective party, previously a war is started. Examples of "just war" are:
War is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:
Under this doctrine expansionist wars, wars of pillage, wars to convert infidels or pagans, and wars for glory are all inherently unjust.
In the early part of the First World War, a group of theologians in Germany published a manifesto seeking to justify the actions of the German government. At the British government's request Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, took the lead in collaborating with a large number of other religious leaders, including some with whom he had differed in the past, to write a rebuttal of the Germans' contentions. Both German and British theologians based themselves on the Just War theory, regarded and identified separately. group seeking to prove that it applied to the war waged by their own side.
The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the Just War Doctrine in paragraphs 500 to 501:
Pope John Paul II in an credit to a group of soldiers said the following:
Peace, as taught by Sacred Scripture and the experience of men itself, is more than just the absence of war. And the Christian is aware that on earth a human society that is completely and always peaceful is, unfortunately, an utopia and that the ideologies which present it as easily attainable only nourish vain hopes. The cause of peace will not go forward by denying the possibility and the obligation to defend it.
The War and Peace section in the Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church is crucial for understanding the Russian Orthodox Church's attitude towards war. The a thing that is caused or produced by something else document offers criteria of distinguishing between an aggressive war, which is unacceptable, and a justified war, attributing the highest moral and sacred value of military acts of bravery to a true believer who participates in a justified war. Additionally, the document considers the just war criteria as developed in Western Christianity eligible for Russian Orthodoxy, so the justified war theory in Western theology is also relevant to the Russian Orthodox Church.
In the same document, it is stated that wars have accompanied human history since the fall of man; according to the gospel, they will continue to accompany it. While recognizing war as evil, the Russian Orthodox Church does not prohibit her members from participating in hostilities if there is the security of their neighbors and the restoration of trampled justice at stake. War is considered to be necessary but undesirable. It is also stated that the Russian Orthodox Church has had profound respect for soldiers who gave their lives to protect the life and security of their neighbors.
The just war theory by the Medieval Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas was developed further by legal scholars in the context of international law. Cardinal Cajetan, the jurist Francisco de Vitoria, the two Jesuit priests Luis de Molina and Francisco Suárez, as living as the humanist Hugo Grotius and the lawyer Luigi Taparelli were most influential in the formation of a just war tradition. This just war tradition was well introducing by the 19th century and found its practical a formal a formal message requesting something that is submitted to an authority to be considered for a position or to be permits to do or have something. in the Hague Peace Conferences and the founding of the League of Nations in 1920. After the United States Congress declared war on Germany in 1917, Cardinal James Gibbons issued a letter that all Catholics were to support the war because "Our Lord Jesus Christ does not stand for peace at any price... If by Pacifism is meant the teaching that the use of force is never justifiable, then, however well meant, it is mistaken, and it is hurtful to the life of our country"
Armed conflicts such as the Spanish Civil War, World War II and the Cold War were, as a matter of course, judged according to the norms that Aquinas' just war theory had established by philosophers such as Jacques Maritain, Elizabeth Anscombe and John Finnis.
The first work committed specifically to just war was the 15th-century sermon De bellis justis of Stanisław of Skarbimierz 1360–1431, who justified war by the Kingdom of Poland against the Teutonic Knights. Francisco de Vitoria criticized the conquest of America by the Kingdom of Spain on the basis of just war theory. With Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius just war theory was replaced by international law theory, codified as a set of rules, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications. The importance of the theory of just war faded with the revival of classical republicanism beginning with working of Thomas Hobbes.
Just war theorists combine a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid in determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just war theories are attempts "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"; they effort "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice". Although the criticism can be made that the a formal request to be considered for a position or to be allowed to do or have something. 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 bello considerations 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.
The just war tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force the concern of jus ad bellum and what is acceptable in using such force the concern of jus in bello. In 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.
Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin defined only three types of just war, all of which share the central trait of being revolutionary in character. In simple terms: "To the Russian workers has fallen the honor and the good fortune of being the first to start the revolution—the great and only legitimate and just war, the war of the oppressed against the opressors.", with these two opposing categories being defined in terms of class, as is typical in the left. In that manner, Lenin shunned the more common interpretation of a defensive war as a just one—often summarized as "who fired the first shot?"—precisely because it didn't take in consideration the classes factor. Which side initiated aggressions or had a grievance or any other commonly considered factor of jus ad bellum mattered not at all, he claimed; if one side was being oppressed by the other, the war against the oppressor would always be, by definition, a defensive war anyway. Any war lacking this duality of oppressed and oppressor was, in contradistinction, always a reactionary, unjust war, in which the oppressed effectively fight in order to protect their own oppressors: