With all the fear and uncertainty about the future in the face of the terrorist attack on America I thought that it might be useful to put a piece in the magazine about the Christian perspective on War. Many people are speaking of a “Just War” but I wonder how many people understand this to mean any more than America feeling herself justified to go to war because of the awful nature of the attack against her people. However, the term “Just War” is one that has a very specific set of criteria set out by many great Christian thinkers and teachers.

Just War theory has a long pedigree in the church going as far back as Augustine of Hippo. But I want to start with Aquinas, who was around in the Middle Ages, he will probably be the most familiar writer to us on the theory behind ‘Just War’ and he also relied quite heavily on Augustine’s arguments for a Just War.

Aquinas gives three things that are necessary for a war to be Just.

1. The authority of the sovereign - this follows Augustine who says “the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold supreme authority”

2. Just Cause – that is that those upon whom war is to be declared should have committed some wrong for which the perpetrators have no intention of making amends.

3. Rightful Intention – it is necessary that those who intend to prosecute a war should have a good intention. Some examples given by Aquinas are the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil.

Those who wage war justly aim at peace. Or as Augustine says:

“We do not seek peace that we may be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace” (Ep. Ad Bonif clxxxix)

The situation faced by America may well be considered to fit these three criteria very well. America certainly has the authority as a sovereign nation to declare war. There can be no doubt that there has been a wrong and that the people who committed those acts of violence have no intention of making amends. As for rightful intention, America claims that any action taken would not be simply a matter of revenge but also an attempt to wipe out international terrorism. Surely in these terms it could be argued that good would be advanced and evil avoided?

The theory of a just war does not end however with the criteria for declaring a war just, but, there are also criteria for the prosecution of such a war and the justice of peace agreements in the termination phase of a war.

Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in most of the literature are referred to in Latin. These parts are:

1. jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place;

2. jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun;

3. jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.

There is not enough room to discuss all of these parts in this issue. However if we look at the criteria for resorting to war this month perhaps we can go on to look at the others in a future issue.

Jus ad bellum

As with Aquinas and Augustine the rules of jus ad bellum are addressed, first and foremost, to heads of state. Since political leaders are the ones who inaugurate wars they are to be held accountable to jus ad bellum principles. Just war theory contends that, for any resort to war to be justified, a political community, or state, must fulfil each and every one of the following six requirements:

1. Just cause. A state may launch a war only for the right reason. The just causes most frequently mentioned include: self-defence from external attack; the protection of innocents; and punishment for wrongdoing. We might include all of these under the one category of "a wrong received." Most modern just war theorists, speak of the one just cause for resorting to war being the resistance of aggression. Aggression, simply put, is unjustified and harmful violence.

2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of a just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough: the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be morally appropriate.

3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s).

4. Last Resort. A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic negotiation. One wants to make sure something as momentous and serious as war is declared only when it seems the only reasonable alternative to effectively punish aggression.

5. Probability of Success. A state may only resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have a measurable impact on the situation.

6. (Macro-) Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or "worth", the costs may the war action proceed.

Just war theory insists all six criteria must each be fulfilled for a particular declaration of war to be justified: it’s all or no justification, so to speak. It is important to note that the first three of these six rules are what we might call duty-based requirements or first-principle requirements. These must be decided prior to action. However once they have been decided then there will be consequences that follow from the decision to act.

The next three requirements then are thought of as consequentialist: when the first principle requirements have been met, we must next consider the expected consequences of launching a war which seems justified according to those first principles, and as we have seen these could apply in the American situation. Therefore, just war theory attempts to provide a combination of both duty and consequence as applied to war.

If we look at the criteria d), e), and f) are we able to apply them to the situation faced by America? Is war really the last resort? Will military action really avenge the deaths of all those in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh? Will it have the desired effect of stopping international terrorism? Will the benefits outweigh the cost in human life?

I cannot answer those questions. I put them there for you to ponder. For most of this article I have spoken about the Americans but of course whilst ultimately the decision is theirs, they do not stand alone. It is only right that we as a nation should stand with them in this time of need. But perhaps one of the things that we could be doing as a nation is asking these questions, putting these points. The other thing we can all be doing is praying for all those with the weight of such decisions on them.

Fr. Bill