Cogitate Theology

Just War Theory Missing Jus Post Bellum

Posted on June 6, 2008. Filed under: Christian Ethics | Tags: Christian Ethics, Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello, Jus Post Bellum, Just War Theory, war |

I’ve had some pretty crazy phone calls in my life.  I guess that is to be expected as I take more of a leadership role in the God’s covenant community, with my friends, and with my family.  Coming from an unchurched background my family and friends see me as their ‘pastor’, regardless of whether or not I’ve taken any ordination exams.  But one phone call I received made my heart stop beating.

Right out of high school I joined the Navy as I was recruited to play football for the Naval Academy.  Through my first summer, which is essentially basic training, I shared a room with a fellow football player named ‘Hoot’.  Hoot and I became real good friends through basic training and our first football season.  Although I had been injured and was released, Hoot remained at the Naval Academy and had chosen to be an officer in the Marine Corps upon graduation.

The phone call was from his mother, well into the present day Iraqi war, and she was distraught.  Hoot, although his present location was a mystery, informed his mother that he had been in two major battles in the effort to take Baghdad.  In one of the battles a friend, former teammate on the football team, and now Marine Corps officer had been severely injured in one of those battles.  Hoot’s mother was distraught, scared for her son’s safety, and hadn’t slept for a couple of days.  War is real.  War is not Hollywood.  War is not a game that kids play in the suburbs of an American city. 

The following is an excerpt taken from an interview conducted with Ross Simpson of the Associated Press Radio.  Simpson was embedded with the American troops and was one of the first journalists to enter Iraq when the war began.  Simpson’s words are in italics. 

“The military’s goal was to enter Baghdad as quickly as possible. They raced forward leaving the destruction behind them.  ‘There were no body counts done, there were no holes dug, no burials, they were left and we kept moving, always moving.’  One day Simpson saw the soldiers gun down an Iraqi officer who was bathing in the bushes with an AK-47 within reach. The body lay there burning for an hour, hour a half before a corpsman put out the fire with an extinguisher.  ‘The corpsman went up and said ‘better you than me.’ And that was it. It was just cold steel. No emotion whatsoever, total disconnect. And I simply thought, these guys were trying to kill me a few minutes ago, how can I feel sorry for them?’  Simpson also witnessed some horrific mistakes. Tense and under the constant threat of suicide bombers, soldiers fired on innocent civilians attempting to flee the city at military checkpoints.  ‘One soldier had to bury 3 of the people, a mother, a father and a 14 year old boy. They dug a grave along the Tigris rive, it was so hard they could only dig it shallow. They put the mother and the father in first and laid the son across their bodies. And the sergeant who had been in the marine corps for 15 years almost had tears in his eyes.  He said ‘what I regret most of all is that we don’t have anybody in this battalion with a Polaroid camera who could take their pictures and make the location. We could put out some flyers in the neighbourhood saying, these people were killed on this evening, do you know them.’”1

Author F. Holmes states it clearly and plain.  “War is evil.  Its causes are evil, whether they be deliberate aggression, unbridled greed, lust for power, fear and distrust, an exaggerated national pride, a perverted sense of honor or some form of social injustice.  Its consequences are evil, for it produces ghastly loss of life and limb; it orphans and widows and horribly maims the innocent both physically and emotionally; it cheapens life and morality; it destroys the means people count on to sustain their existence, and it produces economic disaster.”2

The intent of this post is not to determine whether or not war is evil because “…to call war anything less than evil would be self-deception.”3  Also it is not the intention of this post to evaluate the Iraqi war or wars of the past.  Instead, these two quotes raise the question as to whether or not there can be such a thing as a just war.  Is there any way of justifying sending people into a hostile environment where they put their lives at risk, expose their family to traumatic heartbreak, bring terror to civilians of other nations, and damage the economy of an enemy? And if so, what constitutes a just war?  In this paper I contend that there is such a thing as a just war and that the principles laid out in a the just war theory provide an ethical reasoning for declaring war (jus ad bellum) and offer limitations to war (jus in bello), that is, bring the war under the control of justice, “…so as to reduce the evils that have not been altogether prevented.”4  However, I also contend that the just war theory is in need of jus post bellum principles consisting of the principle of repentance, the principle of honorable surrender, and the principle of restoration.

Just War

To begin with, we must refer back to the introduction statement which claims that ‘war is evil.’  War is at all costs to be avoided.  I am not advocating war.  In fact, the just war theory, which I will seek to prove is ethical, should be based on “…the presumption against violence…”5   Holmes, speaking of the just war theory, states, “The basic intention of the just war theory,…is to condemn war and to prevent it by moral persuasion.”6  John Howard Yoder claims, “…the just-war tradition considers war an evil…”7  The just war theory sees war as evil and seeks to stop the violence before it occurs.  However, there are circumstances in which war cannot be avoided.  The fundamental problem here is the doctrine of original sin.  “The sinful state and condition in which men are born is designated in theology by the name…‘original sin’…The sin is called ‘original sin,’ (1) because it is derived from the original root of the human race; (2) because it is present in the life of every individual from the time of birth, and therefore cannot be regarded as the result of imitation; and (3) because it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man.”8  Genesis 1 makes clear that this does not mean that sin was inherent in the constitution of man.  However, due to original sin, and the fact that man is totally depraved, all evil cannot be avoided.  Holmes claims, “First, not all evil can be avoided.  Evil is not just an individual’s problem, nor is it confined to deeds and thoughts: it is a pervasive condition of fallen human existence that riddles the political and social reality with which we are forced to contend.”9  However, despite the fact that we are all sinful beings, Jesus commands us to love our neighbor in spite of the evils that are committed.  In fact, love should be the impelling motive which drives our response to such evils.  Matthew 5:44 claims, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”  Matthew 19:19 claims “Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  This begs the question, ‘Can one love another by engaging in war?’  Does armed conflict reside somewhere in the realm of Christian love?  After all Jesus did claim that we should turn the other cheek.  Matthew 5:39 states, “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Stassen, speaking of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount says,

“In Jesus’ day, to be slapped on the right cheek was a backhanded slap of insult, as to a slave or a nonperson; to turn the other cheek was to turn the cheek of equal dignity.  Turning the other cheek does not mean mere passivity, but surprising the insulter with nonviolent confrontation, as Gandhi and Martin Luther king Jr. did.  When the Roman soldiers demand that we carry their pack a mile, the transforming initiative is not simply to comply with the demand, but to surprise them by taking an initiative of reconciliation on our own…Each of these initiatives takes an action to oppose injustice, to stand up for human dignity, and to invite to reconciliation.  We are to love our enemies as God does.”10 

This should be our first step of action when confronted with aggressors.  However, this does not mean that we should stand idly by as our brothers and sisters in Christ are under the heavy hand of injustice.  Paul Ramsey makes a strong case to affirm the fact that armed conflict does reside in the realm of Christian love.  He claims,

“While Jesus taught that a disciple in his own case should turn the other cheek, he did not enjoin that his disciples should lift up the face of another oppressed man for him to be struck again on his other cheek.  It is no part of the work of charity to allow this to continue to happen.  Instead, it is the work of love and mercy to deliver as many as possible of God’s children from tyranny, and to protect from oppression, if one can, as many of those for whom Christ died as it may be possible to save.  When choice must be made between the perpetrator of injustice and the many victims of it, the latter may and should be preferred-even if effectively to do so would require the use of armed force against some evil power…the justice of sometimes resorting to armed conflict originated in the interior of the ethics of Christian love.”11

Ramsey again claims,

“When one’s own interests alone are at stake, the Christian governs himself by love and resists not one who is evil.  When his neighbor’s need and the just order of society are at stake, the Christian still governs himself by love and suffers no injustice to be done nor the order necessary to earthly life to be injured.  He governs himself by love and develops the theory of justified war as a reflection of the action which he judges is demanded of him.”12 

Lisa Cahill, commenting on the Roman Catholic Bishops pastoral documents The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, states,

“They acknowledge that love of neighbor is a presumption which ‘binds all Christians,’ and that love of enemy is the ‘key test’ of neighborly love.  Nonetheless, they adopt as ‘historically and theologically the clearest answer’ to the problem of love and violence the position of Augustine that war can be a ‘tragic remedy for sin in the life of political societies.’  War can even be understood as a demand of the command of love if used ‘to restrain evil and protect the innocent.’  Explaining this response, the letter notes that ‘Augustine was impressed by the fact and consequences of sin in history-the ‘not yet’ dimension of the kingdom.”13

There is yet another passage that must be considered before we move on to the criteria for declaring war and offering limitations to war.  The sixth commandment, found in Exodus 23:13 states, “Thou shall not murder.”  Many pacifists and critics of the just war theory claim that the sixth commandment includes killing of all sorts.  Therefore, war is included and should not be supported.  In response to this Holmes makes an astute observation, while taking the context of the passage in consideration.  He claims,

“The Decalogue consists of general rules that are applied in their larger biblical context to concrete situations.  The historical context was Israel’s escape from Egypt and journey to Canaan, during which military action was a harsh fact of life.  In the Mosaic law as a whole, capital punishment was allowable for at least ten different crimes, and killing in self-defense was not a criminal offense.  ‘Thou shalt not kill’ cannot therefore be taken to rule our all killing, let alone war.”14

Holmes again claims,

“It should be noted that the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13, ‘Thou shall not kill’) does not in its context speak to the problem of war but rather to murder and manslaughter and personal vengeance (Exod. 21 and 22).  The Old Testament explicitly allowed lawful government to use force, even capital punishment, when necessary; this rule is reiterated in the context of the New Testament law of love (Rom. 12:9-13:10).”15

It is clear then that all killing is not murder and the sixth commandment does not forbid the killing of any individual.  Thus, due to the fact that evil cannot be avoided, love can encompass the use of armed force, and the sixth commandment does not prohibit the killing of every sort, there is such a thing as a just war.  It is now appropriate to briefly look at the ethical principles of declaring war, otherwise known in the just war theory as the jus ad bellum.

Jus Ad Bellum

“The basic intention of the just war theory,…, is to condemn war and to prevent it by moral persuasion.  But since people will sometimes not be so persuaded, it proceeds to limit war-its occasion, its goals, its weaponry and methods-so as to reduce the evils that have not been altogether prevented.16  In general there are six principles that govern when declaring war is just.  I will briefly examine each of them.  The first principle is:  Just Cause.17  That is to say, that “The causes that can override the presumption against killing are stopping the massacre of large numbers of people or stopping the systematic and long-term violation of the human rights of life, liberty, and community.”18  This includes the defense of one’s own country.  The case has already been made that this is biblical considering the use of force resides in the realm of Christian love.  To think of the genocide that occurred in Rwanda and the fact that the world did not respond until after it was over is preposterous.  The world had an obligation in the name of love to stop the massive genocide that occurred in Rwanda much like the genocide of the Jewish people under Hitler.  The second principle is:  Just Authority.  “Constitutional processes must be followed so the people who will pay with their lives and resources will be represented in the decision.”19  A band of rebels is not just authority.  Authority lies in the hands of a legal government.  In fact, “The U.S. Constitution grants the power ‘to declare war’ to the Congress, not the president (Article I, section 8, clause 11).”20  However, this does not prevent a nation to from making bad decisions and declaring war unjustly.  Romans 3:23 states, ‘for all have sinned’, and since nations and their respective governments are made up of people, nations can and do make wrong decisions.  This is in fact a major point of contention for those who advocate pacifism.  Myron S. Augsburger, a Christian pacifist, speaking of what he claims are the serious problems in the just war theory, states, “…the first being the danger of unwarranted optimism about man’s ability to know what is the right action in the human situation and man’s ability to fulfill it.”21 Admittedly, this does pose a problem. However, measures are in place in order to prevent bad judgment.  For example, “Chapter VII of the United nations Charter introduces collective security use of military means to redress threats to international peace and stability.  This is the legal basis for humanitarian intervention, and it requires collective action, not only action by one nation’s decision acting alone.”22  The third principle is: Last Resort.  Every non-violent action must be exhausted before declaring war.  Every negotiation must be sought and have failed before a declaration of war is made.  Stassen claims, “…killing must be a last resort.”23  War is not justified if a nonviolent measure can be taken to prevent the killing of people.  The fourth principle is: Just Intention.  “The only legitimate intention is to secure a just peace for all involved.  Neither revenge nor conquest nor economic gain nor ideological supremacy are justified.”24  It is not justified to declare war out of revenge, vengeance, or in the name of religion in order to advance ideologies.  The fifth principle is: Probability of Success.  There must be a reasonable chance for victory in order to declare war.  “It is wrong to enter into a war that will kill many people, depriving them of the right to life, liberty, and community, in order to achieve a more important goal, if we will quite surely lose and not achieve that goal, and all those people will die in vain.”25  The probability of success must be measured before war is declared.  The sixth principle is:  Proportionality of Cost.  Some cancer patients forego the option of chemotherapy because they believe the means are worse than the ends.  The same principle applies here.  “Proportionality requires that the total good achieved by a victory will…outweigh the total evil and suffering that the war will cause.  No one should prescribe a cure that is worse than the disease.”26  “It can never be right to resort to war, no matter how just the cause, unless a proportionality can be established between military/political objectives and their price, or unless one has reason to believe that in the end more good will be done than undone or a greater measure of evil prevented.”27  The final principle is: Announcement.  A formal declaration of war must be declared in order for war to be just.  “The government should announce the intention to make war and of the conditions for avoiding it.”28  This gives the other nation a last opportunity to avoid war and meet the required demands for avoiding war.  “Since the use of military force is the prerogative of governments, not of private individuals, a state of war must be officially declared by the highest authorities.”29  Just as there is an ethic for declaring war in the just war theory there is also an ethic for limiting war, also known as Jus in Bello.

Jus In Bello

It is the goal of the just war theory to also limit war when it does occur.  Based on the ethic of Christian love, there are certain things that must be prevented at all costs.  After the war has begun “…the war must be fought by just means.”30  “The weaponry and the force used should be limited to what is needed to repel the aggression and deter future attacks, that is to say to secure a just peace.  Total or unlimited war is ruled out.”31  This rules out the use of nuclear weapons as “…their full use would result in ‘the almost complete reciprocal slaughter of one side by the other, not to speak of the widespread devastation that would follow in the world and the deadly after-effects from the use of such weapons,…’”32  The second principle governing the limitation of the war is the principle of noncombatant immunity.  Holmes comments, “Since war is an official act of government, only those who are officially agents of government may fight, and individuals not actively contributing to the conflict (including POW’s and casualties as well as civilian nonparticipants) should be immune from attack.”33  Every person is made in the image of God, which can be seen in Genesis, and is entitled to the sanctity of their lives.  Therefore, no civilian can and should be attacked intentionally.  However, it is war and we must admit that some civilians have their lives taken away regretfully and out of error.  Stassen states, “All members of an enemy nation retain the sanctity of their lives, created in the image of God.  The only reason why just war overrides enemy soldiers’ right to life is because there is no way of fighting without attacking soldiers.  It is they who are making the war and thus opposing the just cause.”34  Paul Ramsey, speaking of noncombatant immunity claims, “Acts of war which directly intend and directly effect the death of non-combatants are to be classed morally with murder, and are never excusable.  If the excuse is that victory requires this, then we would be saying that he end justifies an intrinsically wrong means or that men may be murdered in order to do good.”35  These are the two principles, just means and noncombatant immunity, that should limit the way a war is fought and both have their placement in the realm of Christian love as their basis.

Jus Post Bellum

The just war theory does well in trying to prevent war, stating principles that govern the decision to go to war, and limiting war when war is in progress.  However, what happens after the war is over?  Is it right, or just, for the victor to return to his homeland without aiding in the restoration of the destruction that he caused?  What type of attitude should the victorious side have after the war is over and how should he treat the defeated?  Michael J. Schuck states, “If Christians are called upon to probe the moral propriety of entering and conducting war by using the…jus ad bellum principles (which concern justification for using force) and…jus in bello principles (which applies to conduct in war), should they not also be called upon to monitor the moral propriety of concluding a war through some set of jus post bellum principles?”36  In his article Michael J. Schuck makes a strong case for such principles which I agree with. 

As Christians we are to act with humility.  James 4:6 states, ‘…God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’  James 4:10 claims, ‘Humble yourselves before the Lord…’ 1 Peter 3:8 says, ‘Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.’  As Christians we are to walk in a state of humility.  Therefore, the first jus post bellum principle that Schuck proposes is a principle of repentance. 

“Victors would be expected to conduct themselves humbly after a war. Where public display is called for, victors should show remorse for the price of war paid not only by their comrades but also by the vanquished. Did Augustine not say that even a just war constitutes a mournful occasion?… There is a real, though subtle, moral difference between appropriately celebrating the return of sons and daughters from war and celebrating the defeat of one’s enemies. Such a distinction may seem marginal, but as the famous Roman Catholic just war theorist John Courtney Murray once said, in morality, margins often make all the difference.”37

Since most just wars, although terrorism is changing the face of warfare, end with a formal surrender, it is necessary for respect to be shown to the defeated army through an honorable surrender.  Joshua Chamberlain, commander for the union army in the civil war, was given the task of formally receiving the surrender of the confederate army at Appomattox.  Days before the surrender both armies were ferociously fighting one another and the potential humiliation of the confederate army during the surrender was enormous.  The confederate army was exhausted and lead by Major General John B. Gordon on top of his horse.

“As Gordon reached the right of the Federal column where Chamberlain and his officers waited, a bugle sounded. Immediately, the whole Union line snapped to attention, and the slapping noise of hands on shifting rifles echoed in the stillness as regiment after regiment in succession down the Union line came to the old manual of arms position of “salute” and then back to “order arms” and “parade rest.” …When Gordon heard the sounds of the drill, he instantly recognized their significance and wheeled to face Chamberlain. As he did, his spurs touched the sides of his horse, causing it to rear, and as his horse’s head then came down in a bow, the gallant young general dropped his sword point to his boot toe in a graceful salute to the man whom he would call “one of the knightliest soldiers of the Federal army”. Turning to his men, the Confederate leader gave an order, which was repeated through the ranks, and the large Confederate banner dipped. The men of the vanquished army then answered with the same salute given them as they marched by, “honor answering honor,” as Chamberlain described it.”38

Respect would be shown and is called for by all Christians.  Every person is made in the image of God and deserves respect for that reason alone.  Peter calls us to a gentile and respectful attitude in his first epistle.

The third and final jus post bellum principle that Schuck proposes is restoration.  Is it respectful, helpful, or humble to leave the battlefield, once the fighting is over, in the ruinous condition in which war has made it?  Is it not disrespectful to the civilian population, having no doubt destroyed a lot of the infrastructure of the nation and their livelihoods, to leave it ruins?  Many will not have the means to start over again without an enormous amount of help.  Plus, the land may still be too dangerous to inhabit.    

“The United Nations estimates that at least 105 million land mines remain uncleared in 62 countries. The American Red Cross calculates that uncleared mines kill 800 people a month and injure another 450 worldwide. The continued presence of such weaponry makes land too dangerous for farming and refugee resettlement…As a minimal requirement, victors must return to the fields of battle and help remove the instruments of war. As a maximal requirement, victors must assist in the repair of the social infrastructure. Proscribed by such a principle would be neglect of the vanquished and disregard of the fact that, for many innocent victims, the war continues after surrender.”39

These jus post bellum principles would  not only display the humble attitude of the victor, but would communicate to the world that their intentions were just in declaring war and following through with the act.  It would show that the victorious nation regrets the unintentional harm of the civilian population and intends to do all they can to help get them back on their feet in order to provide for their families and fellow countrymen.  The jus post bellum principles are invaluable when it comes to testing the motives for the declaration of war.

This post has shown that, on the Biblical basis of Christian love, the use of armed force is acceptable and that just war does exist and is Biblical.  It briefly examined the jus ad bellum principles for declaring war and the jus in bello principles which limit war.  However, principles for guiding the victorious nation after the war are crucial and needed.  The principles of repentance, honorable surrender, and restoration help guide the victor after the war is over in continuing to display the love that the Christ calls us to. ~CT

Bibliography

Berkof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.

Cahill, Lisa Sowele. Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994.

CBC News, “Ross Simpson, Reporter, Associated Press Radio.” http://www.cbc.ca/deadlineiraq/simpson.html

Holmes, Arthur F., ed., War and Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975.

Holmes, Authur F. War: Four Christian Views. Edited by Robert G. Clouse. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981.

Ramsey, Paul. The Just War. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968.

Ramsey, Paul. War and the Christian Conscience: How Shall Modern War Be Conducted Justly?. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1961.

Schick, Michael J. “When the Shooting Stops: Missing Elements in the Just War Theory.” The Christian Century vol. 111 (October 26, 1994).

Stassen, Glen H. “The Ethics of War and Peacemaking.” In Toward and Evangelical Public Policy, ed. Ronald J Sider and Diane Knippers, 284-360. Baker, 2005.

Yoder, John Howard. When War is Unjust:  Being Honest in Just-War Thinking. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.

Make a Comment