Beyond Just War Theory (by Valerie Elverton Dixon)
Just war theory is a mode of analysis that lists criteria by which war may be considered righteous before, during, and after its execution. The criteria to consider before a war are: declared by legitimate authority, just cause, right intent, reasonable hope of success, last resort, and announcement. The criteria to consider during war are: noncombatant immunity, proportionality of damage to good that will result, and limitations on weapons and tactics. Young scholars in Christian ethics are developing criteria to consider after war, such as reparations, truth and reconciliation, and refugees.
Just war theory has a long history inside of Christianity. It is a middle way between holy war and pacifism. However, just peace theory occupies the ground between just war theory and pacifism. From the perspective of just peace theory, just war theory is only war. It presupposes war. It comes into the discourse at the moment when a conflict reaches a crisis point and the possibility of war. The conversation becomes about making the case for war using just war principles. In contrast, just peace theory presupposes peace. The discourse becomes about what the nation is doing to preserve the peace. Further, just peace theory moves beyond just war theory because just war theory is unrealistic in the face of the nature of war itself.
For example, before a war we consider just cause. In reality, the causes of war are always multiple, complex, and entangled. So underneath arguments about defense and humanitarian intervention, there often lies an economic intent. Further, once war begins, no one can ever know how successful a nation will be in executing the war. Just war during war calls for the immunity of innocents and the protection of noncombatants from being targets of violence. Realistically, innocents always die in war. Some will object that this is an argument of moral equivalency. It is. The blood and tears are equivalent; people are equivalently killed and physically and psychologically injured. An innocent ecology is equivalently wounded.
Moreover, the nature of warfare is to defeat an enemy by any means necessary, and this includes using weapons and tactics that will demoralize the enemy even if that means killing innocents. Just war theory cannot come to terms with this reality.
Just peace theory understands that peacemaking happens every day, that the only just war is the war that we prevent because there is no such thing as victory in war. War itself is a defeat of human reason, communication, truth, and respect. At the same time, just peace theory recognizes there may be times when a military force ought to deploy to protect vulnerable populations or to enforce a peace agreement.
September 21 is the U.N. International Day of Peace and Global Cease-fire. It is a day when the world can pause to think about ways to make justice and peace the project and the goal of daily life.
Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Good article and thought provoking.
I can hear the arguments on both sides. I was raised as a military brat and come from a line of soldiers - but I long for peace and hate war. I like that we are at least discussing the issues. I definitely believe we as a Church should be leading the way on the discussion, be the peacemakers and love our enemies.
Posted by: Kevin Davis | September 16, 2008 11:37 AM
"Just peace theory understands that peacemaking happens every day, that the only just war is the war that we prevent because there is no such thing as victory in war. War itself is a defeat of human reason, communication, truth, and respect." Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon
Dr. Dixon,
That is a very idealistic statement and I sincerely wish that I could embrace it as you have. As horrible as wars are, there may be times when they are necessary.
Looking back through the short history of the United States, I believe that many of our conflicts could have been avoided. I don't believe that we should have entered WW1 and the armistice that followed that war probably contributed much to the rise of Hitler in Germany. The Spanish-American war was unnecessary, and I believe that our own Civil War could have been avoided.
Going back further into history before the formation of our country, many of the conflicts were religious wars, and even the recent conflict in Northern Ireland has its roots in sectarian strife.
Unfortunately, the acquistion of new weapons and the transformation in the ways that wars are waged have resulted in an even greater mortality rate for non-combatants. It is now possible to kill thousands of human beings from the sterile environment of an aircraft or from a command center in the United States. When we initiate a war, it is impossible for us to predict how many innocent lives will be lost. The suspension of the universal draft and the banning of any news coverage of the bodies arrving back home ensure that most Americans are totally shielded from our involvement in war.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 16, 2008 11:38 AM
Ms. Dixon has failed to show me that she has found any reasonably solid ground between just war and pacifism.
For instance, Ms. Dixon asserts that "From the perspective of just peace theory, just war theory is only war." She needs another perspective; many "Just War" proponents came down in opposition to the Iraq War.
Later on Ms. Dixon observes that "In reality, the causes of war are always multiple, complex, and entangled." That is often the truth, but life itself is complex. This does not make it impossible for us to examine and evaluate motivations and reach firm conclusions about morality. And peace itself can be complicated: compromises are made, injustices are tolerated. Nations agree to peace for a wide range of reasons, some of which are economic. Does this make peace wrong?
She also argues that "Moreover, the nature of warfare is to defeat an enemy by any means necessary, and this includes using weapons and tactics that will demoralize the enemy even if that means killing innocents. Just war theory cannot come to terms with this reality." In reality "Just War" has dealt with the issue of right and proportionate means for centuries. We come to terms with this by the means of rules of engagement and war crimes trials. And it's been known for centuries that atrocities rarely advance legitimate war aims -- if anything they are more likely to stoke resistance among the enemy's civilian population.
And at the end comes the exception that threatens to blow the entire structure apart: "...just peace theory recognizes there may be times when a military force ought to deploy to protect vulnerable populations or to enforce a peace agreement. But how can that innocent population be protected, or that peace treaty be enforced, merely through deployment? If the threat of force is not credible, what good does deployment do? Once a force is deployed, it's just a short step to the actual use of force. Either that or deployment is nothing more than an empty gesture.
Over centuries Christianity has developed two frameworks for dealing with war: pacifism and just war. I'm not sure there is a viable third alternative. If there is, this ain't it.
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 16, 2008 11:44 AM
Glad that Miss Dixon werent around when Hitelr conquered all of Europe, eh Big Guy?We'd all be spaeking Germin todyay.
Posted by: Bud Hog Duncan | September 16, 2008 12:02 PM
LV: "Over centuries Christianity has developed two frameworks for dealing with war: pacifism and just war."
Unfortunately, there were others, such as the Inquisition and the early Puritan slaughter of the natives, and the Bush "Doctrine" of pre-emptive war that Sarah Palin claims not to know about.
BHD: "We'd all be spaeking Germin todyay."
And probably much worse than we speak and write English. And with just as bad a knowledge of history.
Posted by: I and I | September 16, 2008 12:17 PM
Posted by: Bud Hog Duncan | September 16, 2008 12:02 PM
You could be correct. But then again if the world community had been doing their inspections like what was set-up with the Armistise - maybe Germany would not have been able to build up a defense and become a threat to the rest of the world when some nut named Adolf came along.
To quote Spock - Sometimes the needs to the many out weigh the needs of the few. One good sniper could have rid the world of Hitler and what would have happened then? Might we not have gone to war - the war would have been short lived. The German Higherarchy might have imploded?
Just a thought
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 16, 2008 12:28 PM
Glad that Miss Dixon werent around when Hitelr conquered all of Europe, eh Big Guy?We'd all be spaeking Germin todyay.
Oversimplification. World War II can be traced to several factors: Resentment in Germany over the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I -- the Jewish people were doing pretty well even as the rest of the country was suffering. Plus, Europe of that day deeply feared the "Red Menace" that was Stalin's Soviet Union and decided to deal with the devil they didn't recognize in those days because Hitler opposed communism.
Bottom line, the issue isn't about simply opposing war for its own sake -- it's solving issues politically and using other means to keep wars from happening in the first place.
Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 1:04 PM
A good book on this topic that I found very helpful is Gary M. Simpson's War, Peace, and God: Rethinking the Just War Tradition (Augsburg Fortress, 2007). It's written primarily to a Lutheran audience, but I think it would be valuable for any Christian to read.
Simpson, a theology professor, doesn't give out-and-out answers to the war and peace dilemma, nor does he argue for either traditional just war thinking or historic pacifism; what he does is provide a solid framework for thoughtful reflection and discussion. He also does a good job of standing above the emotionalism that so often clouds discussion on this very important issue.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | September 16, 2008 2:30 PM
One more thing about Simpson's book: it's only 100 pages long, so it won't take forever to read!
D
Posted by: Don | September 16, 2008 2:32 PM
I think it's worth pointing out that the just war position includes a continuum of perspectives ranging from limited police action to all-out war, based on a set of moral guidelines that can vary significantly depending on the setting.
Just war theory does not presuppose war, as the author suggests. For a helpful perspective on the relationship between just war theory and pacifism, check out the first chapter of scholar-activist David Cortright's book Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Cambridge University Press, 2008)
About just war theory, Cortright writes: "Most ethicists within the tradition agree .... that the just war framework is based on a presumption against the use of military force." (emphasis mine) He goes on to say: "An honest appraisal of war through the lens of just war criteria would forbid any consideration of nuclear strikes and would rule out virtually all forms of large-scale, unilateral military intervention."
Cortright suggests combining the pacifist and just war traditions rather than viewing them as opposits. This, he says, allows for a richer examination of the peace tradition, one that more accurately reflects the thinking of those who consider themselves part of the peace movement.
Posted by: Renee LaReau | September 16, 2008 2:33 PM
Not to mention, WWII was not just about Germany, otherwise it would not have been a World War.
Yes, wars kill people. So do political leaders, gangs, drugs, poverty, any number of things.
Posted by: frankie | September 16, 2008 2:37 PM
"Just peace" is viable because it's not an argument against war when war may be immanent. It's a perspective of living -- an attitude toward world affairs and the value of both human life and environment that presupposes peace is the far better choice.
If "just peace" had been employed, there may have been no Hitler in the first place -- no blind eyes turned away from the governmental policies and the dictatorial policies of Hitler. Had the churches in and out of Germany not chosen passivity in response to the rise of the Third Reich; had churches been more biblical and less "manifest destiny", there would not have been the slaughter of native populations when Europeans moved in. Assuming peace is the rule before considering war makes it possible for Christians -- and anyone -- to presume that the right and moral things to do are those which stop major conflicts before they get started. You can't raise an army of storm troopers if nobody will join.
Posted by: openeyes | September 16, 2008 3:25 PM
For what its worth, I've never thought of Just War theory as having a predisposition for or against war. Just War theory is a series of guidelines that establish whether or not a nation may or may not morally wage war, and what tactics may be used in the event of war. The goal is not to eliminate conflict and war, but to restrain them and improve the prospects for peace over the longer term.
Just War theory and Pacifism give very different answers to an important question: is it ethical for a Christian to fight? Just War theory says "Yes, under certain circumstances." Pacifism says "No."
This is ultimately a binary choice: No means no, and yes, whatever the conditions you might put on it, means something other than no. I sincerely doubt that there is a coherent way to unify the two schools of thought. The minute a pacifist allows that the use of force might be permitted, she has accepted the basic principle of Just War.
That having been said, one can apply Just War theory and still view war as a tragedy. One can adhere to Just War theory and still see value in all the tools of diplomacy. The question is not whether or not diplomacy is preferable to war, the question is what is a Christian to do when diplomacy is ineffective?
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 16, 2008 3:40 PM
One of the most interesting paradoxes (or paradi?) of the Just War Theory is that it originates with the branch of Christianity that precipitated multiple wars in its own ecclesiastical interest. Despite its history, however, it is encouraging to see church leaders of any faith who would council restraint when it comes to a decision to enter into armed conflict when the likely outcome is that thousands of non-combatants will be killed or injured.
But to address the question:
"...what is a Christian to do when diplomacy is ineffective?
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 16, 2008 3:40 PM"
I think that Christians should set a very high standard for justifying war - especially preemptive war. I think that we were correct to go after Osama bin Laden. However, I don't think that our leaders counted the cost before attacking Iraq. Every single orphan there whose parents died from our bombs is a potential terrorist.
May God grant us wisdom in dealing with such confrontations in the future. I'm afraid that we will be paying for the rash decisions of the past seven years for many more generations.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 16, 2008 4:13 PM
So underneath arguments about defense and humanitarian intervention, there often lies an economic intent.
Dr Dixon -
I believe that you are correct. Hitler anexed the Sudaton Land because of it mineral and oil reserves. He had no right to it - it did not belong to Germany. Chamberlain gave it to Hitler so that he would sign a Treaty saying that he woulf not attack his neighboring countries. Chamberlain had no right to give him the land and Hitler's signature was a good as the paper he signed - worthless.
So Chanberlain gave away that which he had no right to do. Gain nothing in return except a false promise. People that had no say in the matter were given to a Dictator they did not want, and the world still went to war.
I am all for peace and diplomacy. But I do not want another Chamberlain in the mix nor do I want to embolden another Hitler.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 16, 2008 4:24 PM
“The criteria to consider before a war are: declared by legitimate authority, just cause, right intent, reasonable hope of success, last resort, and announcement. The criteria to consider during war are: noncombatant immunity, proportionality of damage to good that will result, and limitations on weapons and tactics. “
I don’t know which ‘version’ of the just war doctrine you are using.
“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.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309
Put in these terms, there is no argument that the invasion of Iraq met none of the just war criteria.
Pax Christi
Posted by: neuro_nurse | September 16, 2008 6:00 PM
Chamberlain gave it to Hitler so that he would sign a Treaty saying that he woulf not attack his neighboring countries. Chamberlain had no right to give him the land and Hitler's signature was a good as the paper he signed - worthless.
You still don't address the very real problem with Stalin -- who, Europe knew, in many ways was worse than Hitler.
Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 10:09 PM
Choosing to be a follower of Christ is a political decision.
The choice requires that we align ourselves with the Kingdom of God and we leave behind the "Kingdom of Fallen Men."
We may exist in it and participate in it but it cannot hold our primary loyalty. We are a "holy nation" so the rules for us have to be different.
Our nations may go to war but to follow the teachings of Christ does not allow for pointing a gun/tank/B-52 at possibly a brother or sister in Christ and blowing his or her brains out.
Remember before Rome took Christianity on as it's favored religion Christians did not serve in the military. For the first 300 years of Christianity's existence Jesus' followers knew it was wrong to go to war.
The Just War theory is a product of Christians in bed with the State trying to make sense of their religion and their politics. Jesus words do not make sense from inside the Kingdom of Fallen Men. Jesus teaching should lead us to the conclusion that "there are things we will die for, but nothing we will kill for."
And, by the way, Detrich Bonhoeffer part of the German church who resisted the Third Reich, participated in an attempt to murder Hitler regretted his participation for the rest of his (short) life.
Posted by: SkipinPT | September 17, 2008 2:00 AM
"just war theory is unrealistic in the face of the nature of war itself." this is a very thoughtful article.
Brother Will Campbell's one sentence international peace treaty is worth chewing on: "It shall be a violation of international law for any nation to kill a child of another nation."
Posted by: nad2 | September 17, 2008 12:01 PM
SkipingPT,
Gotta ask, what do you think Armaggedon will be about?
Posted by: U TOO | September 17, 2008 2:26 PM
It is incredible to me how casual Christians have become about war, and especially modern wars. Few, if any, modern wars meet just war standards. In our current wars in Iraq and afghanistan we have killed far more "innocent" civilians than terrorists ever killed, all in the name of "freedom" and "democracy". Basicly, nationalism as it is practiced, is incompatible with Christianity for our diplomatic and military efforts are all designed to protect our national interests (read our wealth and favored position) from those who would threaten us. We maintain an enormous military establishment at a heavy cost of dollars and scarce resources to maintain what we call our "security" in the world; interpret the latter to mean our privileged position in the world though we rationalize this as preserving "democracy". True, pacifism or near pacifism makes no human sense; but then neither does the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Posted by: George, Jr. | September 17, 2008 4:06 PM
George,
I really don't know of very many Christians who support the current wars. I know I wasn't referring to them in my posts on this article. Most Christians I know support the troops, but not the war.
Posted by: frankie | September 17, 2008 4:13 PM
I agree with SkipinPT. We were instructed to take care of the widows and orphans, not make widows and orphans.
Departments of Peace and Wisdom might be helpful in this stage of our nation's subjugation, (we can't honestly call any of this leadership).
Looks like the Phalse Profit is real afterall.
Peace and Hope, B
Posted by: Barbara | September 23, 2008 4:17 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?