What comprises a ‘just war?’

Just war theory originated in the 5th century with the writings of Augustine. In a religious studies class in Bloomington, students draw upon Judeo-Christian, Islamic and secular ethics to assess world conflict that has resulted in linchpins to our collective histories: Hiroshima, the Nuremberg Trials, Kosovo, Sept. 11, Iraq. Just war theory continues to evolve in response to experience.

By Susan Williams

Today, the big questions in terms of ethics and ‘just war theory’ revolve around preemptive action opposed to response to aggression. Preemptive war supposes clear and imminent danger. When the U.S.-Iraqi War is examined by historians of the just-war tradition, the focus will be on whether the war was a case of self-defense or an excuse for U.S. interests. “During the month leading up to the current war in Iraq, the world was focused on the ‘whether’—is going to war just and under what circumstances is it just? After the war began, our concern shifted to the ‘how.’”

The answers have never come easily, if at all.

In an upper level undergraduate class with a graduate section, “War and Peace in Western Religion,” Richard Miller, chair and professor of religious studies at IU Bloomington, introduces his students to a body of classical and contemporary literature, philosophy, international agreements and rules comprised by “just war theory.”

“There is a long tradition in Western religion and philosophy of ‘just war theory.’ It originated in the 5th century with the writings of Augustine, developed within later medieval and early modern Christian thought, and contributed to developments in international law,” said Miller. “Also, it invites comparison with other religious traditions regarding the ethics of war. My class draws upon Jewish, Christian, Islamic and secular sources to help us think about religious and moral ideas in theory and apply them to specific conflicts, such as World War II, Vietnam, the intervention in Kosovo and Sept. 11.”

And now, of course, the war in Iraq.

There are two pillars of just war theory, said Miller. They focus on what he calls the “whether” and the “how” questions.

“The first pillar is called the ‘jus ad bellum’ and includes criteria for determining whether it is just to enter war,” said Miller. “The second is called the ‘jus in bello’ and includes criteria for evaluating conduct by participants in war. During the month leading up to the current war in Iraq, the world was focused on the ‘whether’—is going to war just and under what circumstances is it just? After the war began, our concern shifted to the ‘how.’ We expressed anxiety about the costs inflicted on civilians, the damage done to the Iraqi infrastructure and the risks our soldiers were asked to take.’”

Sounds simple enough in theory—at least until the rules are used to think critically about specific situations. For example, it’s likely that only the most fervent pacifists would dispute the U.S. entry into World War II after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Response to a direct attack is expressly allowed in just war tradition. But was it ethical to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima?

“Many who study war will say that it was not justified,” said Miller. “There are others who will say that the end justified the means. This example plays into the ‘how’ question. In just war theory, not all means are acceptable. Even if you have a just cause, you are not permitted to do whatever you want in order to win. Civilians are never to be intentionally targeted, and weapons of mass destruction cannot be used.”

Miller added that the just war tradition undergoes change and development in response to experience. Given the synergism between international conflict, law and the ethics of war, he explained, rules were developed and stated in documents such as the Geneva Convention, the U.N. Statement of Human Rights and U.S. military rules of engagement. Case law, specifically the Nuremberg Trials, he said, also contributed to international understanding of proper conduct and behavior of participants in war.

“For example, after Nuremberg, people cannot claim that they were simply following orders as an excuse for committing war crimes,” he said. “We ended up with a greater understanding of combatant responsibility during war. Moreover, students at the three main service academies are now trained in the ethics of war, and officers are directly accountable for the behavior of those under their command.”

With the current war in Iraq, we can now expect to see a further evolution of just war tradition, according to Miller.

“Today, one big question is whether preemptive action as opposed to war in response to aggression is justified,” he said. “In order to engage in a preemptive war, there must be a clear and imminent danger. It must be anticipatory of self-defense. Those who work in just war theory are asking if we had sound reasons for the war in Iraq.”

Complicating an already complex situation is the fact that “non-state actors” are active on the stage of global affairs. Traditionally, wars have been fought between formally recognized nations that accept, in principle at least, cross-cultural laws governing war and war crimes, but with Sept. 11 and Afghanistan, explained Miller, that changed. Al Queda, however, took responsibility for crashing commercial airliners into the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. But Al Queda was not a government, but a terrorist organization, a non-state actor, harbored by the Taliban. How will just war theory address the problem of terrorism?

And then there is another consideration that muddies the traditional waters further.

“The question regarding international arms trade hasn’t adequately been discussed,” said Miller. “Before the first Gulf War, France, Russia, the United States and other countries helped Saddam Hussein build up a huge arsenal. How did he re-arm himself and to what extent were Western powers complicit in his aggression against Kuwait? This is a question in which both pacifists and just war advocates have a common moral concern.”

Miller acknowledged that special conditions make it very difficult to work off of either of the two pillars of just war theory, but one can, indeed, go back to the basic questions.

“For just war tradition to adjust to experience, we have to keep asking critical questions,” he said. “Are the end intentions of war meant to secure peace or to advance imperialistic aims? Is intervention justified? Are the means that are used appropriate?

“Answering these questions requires sifting through data and making ongoing evaluations. The ethics of war is a classic instance of moral complexity.”