Lynn Roulstone at the Open University raised the questions “What do we think to Aquinas’s Just War theory? Is it ever possible to have such a thing?” and provided a link to a short explanation of the seven principles of Just-War Theory.
I wasn’t particularly impressed by them and this was my response:
1. Last Resort
Sartre, Ghandi and Jesus said a violent response need not be the final resort. Deciding not to use violence is also an available option. It was certainly the best way for your civilisation to survive an invasion by the Roman empire, the Mongol hordes or many other invading forces who purpose was to subjugate.
2. Legitimate Authority
We have a representative democracy so if Tony Bliar decides to start a war despite dodgy evidence and 3 million people protesting, he is perfectly entitled. If Obama declares war on Mexico tomorrow, he has legal, personal, absolute authority to do so under USA law.
3. Just Cause
Righting a wrong done to A committed by B by killing C is as logical as bombing for peace. It just results in tit-for-tat feuds that need never end.
4. Probability of Success
If it is wrong to fight in case you lose – and there is always the possibility of unexpectedly losing – then one should not fight. Conversely, if one has such overwhelming power that victory is inevitable, there must be diplomatic alternatives to using overwhelming violence.
5. Right Intention
A hollow argument. The victor is always right, after the event. Also, if the intention of war is to re-establish peace, then the best outcome is genocide of one’s enemies and destruction of their culture since that best guarantees peace.
The minimum amount of force absolutely necessary is often the assassination of one person or one dynastic line. However, international conventions have long, long agreed that targeted execution of the leaders of sovereign states is against the rules. Killing millions of the people who happen to live in the same country is OK though.
7. Civilian Casualties
The concept of total war (which is thousands of years old) means that the economy and production ability of the enemy are part of the war machine and valid targets. Bombing dams to flood valleys is fine. Armaments factories employ civilians as do the mines and refineries that serve them. There is no point continuously killing their soldiers if they just keep breeding and equipping more – one must raze their cities, salt their fields, sabotage their infrastructure and starve the population into defeat. The civilian capacity to raise armies must be destroyed. The alternative is to not use total war, but then you lose to someone who is.
I do not see how there can be a just war. Expedient, yes, but just, no.