War has been an overwhelming problem for mankind from the earliest times. What are its causes? Is there any hope of eliminating war as an instrument of national policy? Can it at least be restricted in its scope and violence? Is it realistic to attempt to distinguish between just and unjust wars? What implications might this have for national policy and for individual action? Can rules of morality be applied to the conduct of war and to relations among nations generally? What are the conditions of peace?
It generally is assumed that a primary condition of peace is some kind of stable world order under a rule of law. How might this be assured? How does international law relate to justice and to diplomacy and world politics?
If war is accepted as a necessity in certain circumstances, how should it be conducted? How might one define war, and what is its nature?
At different times in history Christians have taken different attitudes toward war, and these different approaches persist to our own time. In the days of the early church, when Christians were a persecuted minority, they generally held to a pacifist position in defiance of Rome. Then, when Christianity became the state religion of Rome, the general attitude of the church changed to one not only of acquiescence but of encouragement of war even for religious purposes. The first Christian emperor, Constantine, was converted on the battlefield when, according to legend, on the eve of the battle of the Milvian Bridge, he saw in the sky a fiery cross with this inscription, "By this sign thou shalt conquer." He had his soldiers put a Greek monogram representing Christ (CR, Chi Rho) on their shields, and he made a promise to accept Christianity if he prevailed in the battle, which he did.
During the Middle Ages, war was turned further to a holy cause as the popes raised a series of Crusades, over a period of three centuries, with the intent of freeing the Holy Land from the infidel Turks. For their part, the Moslems proclaimed holy war against these invading Christians from the West.
But then doubts began to grow about the excesses of war. Thomas Aquinas searched the writings of Ambrose and Augustine and revived the doctrine of "just and unjust wars." The doctrine gained wide support among leaders of the church during the later Middle Ages.
As codified generally by Thomas Aquinas and later writers such as Grotius and Vattel, the conditions that Augustine laid down for a just war were essentially as follows:
- .The war must be declared formally.
- It must be declared and waged only by sovereign authority.
- It must be for a just cause, i.e., for injury received, not simply anticipated.
- It must be necessary, i.e., the last resort for restoring justice.
- It must be waged with the right intention--restoration of justice and peace.
- The good to be attained must be greater than the attending evils.
- Only so much force may be used as is necessary to achieve the ends.
- There must be a reasonable prospect of success.
In recent years new interest has been developing in the "just war" doctrine. Yet it is an attitude that gets a cool reception from two completely different schools of thought. Some people see no place for moral considerations in matters of national interest. They are not impressed by appeals to morality as such. For them actions must be justified on grounds of expediency.
On the other hand there are many people, moved only by the highest moral considerations, who reject the idea that any war can be just. Further, they find any effort to maintain any kind of rules or international law in the conduct of war as being completely incongruous. How can anything so violent and so irrational as war be regulated by rules? If it is possible to make rules for the conduct of war, why not just adopt a rule to abolish it?
In between there are those who point out that some rules about the conduct of war have been observed to some degree over the centuries. Is it not better to mitigate the violence of war, if only slightly, than to recognize no limits on it whatever?
Studies of ritual war among peoples so widespread and so isolated as tribes in New Guinea, Africa, the Caribbean, South America, and Asia suggest that an impulse for organized combat may be an inborn trait of human nature. But if this should be so, it does not mean that the practice should be condoned. The work of civilization is, at least in part, to overcome or channel tendencies of human nature. On the other hand, for those who insist that warfare is a part of human nature and therefore cannot be curbed by rules, ritual warfare would suggest exactly the opposite. The tribes carry on this warfare under very strict rules. Often a single casualty will satisfy the requirement for victory after a whole day of battle. Seldom, if ever, is a village destroyed, or a festive occasion interrupted by an attack, nor does any group resort to wholesale slaughter.
Holders of the pacifist position toward war represent many variations. Some shun all participation in activities related to war. They offer no resistance to attack and are prepared to accept the consequences. Others are active in opposing warlike activities, but also in opposing injustice though they advocate only "nonviolent" means. But then the question arises, why are blockades and embargoes more or less moral than war itself?
Is there any real hope for peace in our time? Is the best hope through a universal state, or some kind of international organization, or can we simply rely on balance of power and the "balance of terror" of nuclear armaments? Or is peace to be assured by massive preparations for war as a suitable deterrent against attack?
The attempts which statesmen, warriors, philosophers, theologians, and common people have made through the ages to find solutions to these questions provide some perspective for our own attempts. So far no one has come up with any effective and lasting solutions. On the other hand, they have been able to maintain sufficient restraint at least to allow us to survive. Whether this still can be done in the nuclear age is another question.
In any event, war must not be thought about in isolation. Always it must be related to the vital interests and policies which called it into being.
James A. Huston
Dean and Professor Emeritus of History