University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1990 Just war theory : an historical and philosophical analysis. Paul P. Christopher University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Christopher, Paul P., "Just war theory : an historical and philosophical analysis." (1990). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2066. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2066 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 3 1 2 b b fl b fc, 4 7 ^ b JUST WAR THEORY: AN HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS A Dissertation Presented By PAUL P. CHRISTOPHER Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 1990 DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY © Copyright by Paul Pasquale Christopher 1990 All Rights Reserved JUST WAR THEORY: AN HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANAYLSIS A Dissertation Presented by PAUL P. CHRISTOPHER Approved as to style and content by: Linda Wetzel, Member Ervin Staub, Member )hn G. Robison, Departmenl Head Til osophy ACKNOWLEDGMENTS One of the great satisfactions of completing a project of this magnitude is that it affords me the opportunity to thank publicly those associates who have been generous enough to take time from their own work to assist me with mine. I especially want to thank my friend and mentor, Gareth Matthews, who first suggested the topic to me, and patiently advised and encouraged me every step of the way these past four years. Others who have been generous enough to read and comment on the entire manuscript include Bruce Aune, David Newell, Alan Schactman, Ervin Staub, and Linda Wetzel. I am deeply indebted to each of them. Many other of my friends and colleagues have provided sage advice on particular sections of the work at various stages of its development. I am especially grateful to Gary Coleman, Merrit Drucker, Anthony Hartle, and Bob Williams for their generous assistance. I am also grateful to those distinguished scholars from across the nation who continue to visit the United States Military Academy without financial remuneration in order to address future officers on the topic of war and morality, and especially those who, during their recent visits, graciously took time to discuss and advise me regarding my work on this topic. My special thanks to E. iv Maynard Adams, Robert Audi, Nick Fotion, R. M. Hare, Brian Jenkins, James Turner Johnson, John Kekes, Thomas Nagel, Robert Phillips, Telford Taylor, Malham Wakin, and Michael Walzer. Of course, one should not construe from the fact that others have assisted me in this project that they should share in any of the blame for its shortcomings. Most, if not all, of the valuable insights contained herein were inspired by the comments of others. Deficiencies most likely reflect my stubbornness to adopt some of the good suggestions I received. v ABSTRACT JUST WAR THEORY: AN HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS MAY 1990 PAUL CHRISTOPHER, B.S. NORWICH UNIVERSITY M.S., UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE M.A., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Directed by: Professor Gareth Matthews Pacifism and realism both presuppose an unbridgeable gap between war and morality. The pacifist, abhorring the suffering caused by violence, concludes that war is the consummate evil and rejects it under any circumstances. The realist, beginning from a similar assessment regarding the evil of war, concludes that those who bring war on a peaceful nation deserve all the maledictions its people can pour out. These views reflect the negative duty not intentionally to harm innocent persons, on one hand, and the positive obligation that innocent persons be protected, on the other. The pacifist views the prohibition against harming others as more fundamental; the realist accepts the positive duty to protect others as more basic. Historically, the just war tradition has provided an alternative to these extremes. Recent events in the conduct of wars around the world have, however, called into question the relevancy of certain aspects of vi the just war tradition for modern wars, In this work I critically examine the notion of a just war in terms of both jus ad bellum, or the justifications for going to war, and jus in bello, or the just means of waging war, as it is reflected in international law. I begin with a discussion of various formulations of the realist's and pacifist's positions and argue that the just war tradition provides a reasonable alternative to either of these extremes. I then briefly trace the historical development of the just war tradition beginning with Roman Law. The purpose of this historical analysis is to identify those moral principles and arguments that inspired the development of various aspects of the just war tradition so that these same principles and arguments can be used as a basis for reevaluating existing rules in light of modern tactics and technology. Finally, I expose and discuss serious deficiencies with the way the just war tradition is reflected in current international law and offer proposals for how these problems might be addressed. My conclusion is that the just war tradition can provide effective guidelines for ameliorating the tragedy of war now and into the 21st Century if the issues I identify are adequately addressed. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABSTRACT Chapter INTRODUCTION 1. REALISM AND GOING TO WAR 6 2. REALISM AND FIGHTING WARS 38 3. PACIFISM 49 4. JUST WAR IN ANTIQUITY 83 5. DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUST WAR TRADITION 96 6. SECULARIZATION OF THE JUST WAR TRADITION 136 7. HUGO GROTIUS: FATHER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 168 8. PROBLEMS FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW 22 6 9. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WAR CRIMES 262 10. MILITARY NECESSITY AND REPRISALS 311 11. THE TACTICS OF TERRORISM 367 BIBLIOGRAPHY 401 viii . INTRODUCTION Hugo Grotius, writing in the 17th Century, observed that concerning war we must not believe either that nothing is allowable, or that everything is. Today we might refer to the views Grotius was rejecting as pacifism and realism. The pacifist, abhorring the suffering caused by violence, concludes that war is the consummate evil and rejects it under any circumstances. The realist, beginning from a similar assessment regarding the evil of war, concludes that those who bring war on a peaceful nation deserve all the maledictions that its people can pour out. These views reflect a tension between the negative duty not intentionally to harm innocent people, on one hand, and the positive obligation that innocent persons be protected, on the other. These two moral inclinations or precepts seem to be at the center of debate concerning when to wage war and how to wage it. The pacifist views the prohibition against harming others as the more fundamental of the two; the realist takes the positive duty to protect others as the more basic. Historically, the just war tradition has provided an alternative to these two extremes Today the tenets of this tradition are reflected in both the national laws of individual states and the 1 international laws of war as formalized in the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the United Nations Charter. Recent events in the conduct of war have, however, called into question the relevance of certain aspects of the just war tradition for modern wars. Examples from Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Central America, and the Middle East seem to provide strong evidence that the just war tradition and the international laws that reflect it are ineffective in protecting innocents and ameliorating suffering in wartime. It is important and timely to reevaluate the viability of the just war tradition, I believe, in light of both the paradigmatic changes in the technology of offensive and defensive weapons and the widespread adoption of guerrilla and terrorist tactics. If the just war tradition and the laws that reflect it need revision in light of the profound changes in the way that modern war is conducted, we should identify the shortfalls and work to make these changes before another war occurs. In this work I undertake a critical examination of just war tradition in terms of both jus ad bellum, or the justifications for going to war, and jus in bello, or the just means of waging war, as it is reflected in the international law. I begin with a discussion of various formulations of the realist's and pacifist's positions and argue that there are serious problems with each. My 2 . purpose here is to show that some type of just war tradition is the best means of resolving the tension between the positive duty to protect oneself and others snd the negative duty to do no harm. This is the focus of Chapter 1-3. In Chapters 4-6 I outline how the modern concept of just war evolved from a fusion of early Roman law and Judeo-Christ ian teachings. Beginning with Ancient Rome, I briefly trace the development of the just war tradition through the middle ages, and show how it was transformed into a corpus of international law following the Thirty- years War. My objective here is to explore the reasoning behind the key elements of modern just war doctrine and the laws of war that reflect it by studying their origins. If we can understand the moral or prudential principles that motivated the development of the tenets of the just war tradition, we will be better able to evaluate its relevance in light of modern technology and tactics In Chapters 7 and 8 I address more specifically the relationship between the just war tradition and the international laws of war.