THREE THEORIES OF JUST WAR: UNDERSTANDING WARFARE AS A SOCIAL TOOL THROUGH COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WESTERN, CHINESE, AND ISLAMIC CLASSICAL THEORIES OF WAR A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY MAY 2012 By Faruk Rahmanović Thesis Committee: Tamara Albertini, Chairperson Roger T. Ames James D. Frankel Brien Hallett Keywords: War, Just War, Augustine, Sunzi, Sun Bin, Jihad, Qur’an DEDICATION To my parents, Ahmet and Nidžara Rahmanović. To my wife, Majda, who continues to put up with me. To Professor Keith W. Krasemann, for teaching me to ask the right questions. And to Professor Martin J. Tracey, for his tireless commitment to my success. 1 ABSTRACT The purpose of this analysis was to discover the extent to which dictates of war theory ideals can be considered universal, by comparing the Western (European), Classical Chinese, and Islamic models. It also examined the contextual elements that drove war theory development within each civilization, and the impact of such elements on the differences arising in war theory comparison. These theories were chosen for their differences in major contextual elements, in order to limit the impact of contextual similarities on the war theories. The results revealed a great degree of similarities in the conception of warfare as a social tool of the state, utilized as a sometimes necessary, albeit tragic, means of establishing peace justice and harmony. What differences did arise, were relatively minor, and came primarily from the differing conceptions of morality and justice within each civilization – thus indicating a great degree of universality to the conception of warfare. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1. Western (European) War Theory ....................................................................................... 8 Historical Context ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Theory of Justice ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Theory of State ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Theory of War ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 2. Chinese War Theory ........................................................................................................ 39 Historical Context................................................................................................................................ 40 Theory of Justice (Harmony) ............................................................................................................... 42 Theory of State.................................................................................................................................... 56 Theory of War ..................................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 3. Islamic War Theory .......................................................................................................... 80 Historical Context................................................................................................................................ 87 Theory of Justice ................................................................................................................................. 91 Theory of State.................................................................................................................................. 103 Theory of War ................................................................................................................................... 113 Chapter 4. Comparative Theory Analysis ......................................................................................... 134 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 150 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 152 3 List of Figures Three Spheres of Justice ................................................................................................................... 98 Analysis of Contextual Elements ..................................................................................................... 139 Analysis of Jus ad Bellum Criteria.................................................................................................... 144 Analysis of Jus in Bello Criteria ................................................................................................................ 149 4 INTRODUCTION War is a common experience of mankind. Each culture, however, has responded to this common experience in different ways, shaped by their varying ethical values, philosophical perspectives, and historical experience. The key point of agreement in traditional conceptions of war is that it is accepted as a part, albeit a tragic one, of human experience, justified only under certain restricted conditions. This analysis of war theories aims to extrapolate the war theory ideals from each of the three civilizations and compare the results, in order to demonstrate the similarities in the core conceptions of warfare, and establish the use of war as a historically universal tool of the state. What is meant by the phrase, “war theory ideals,” is the framework regulating the use of warfare as a social tool, constructed according to the principles of justice and reflecting the full gravity of its implications for legitimate action – as understood in the period of its comprehensive development. The comparative work of this thesis, therefore, is significant for applied ethics and greater understanding of the Chinese, Western (European), and Islamic standard in regards to warfare and justice – topics both relevant and long overdue. This comparative examination will provide a vista from which to consider the implications of theories separated by time, geography, and socio-cultural backgrounds. The term “war theory” will be taken to mean the establishment of rules of war as a social tool for specific cultures, based upon the particular notions of that culture’s notions of justice and statehood. In the same way, the theories of justice and statehood will be taken to reflect the specific cultural ideals. The following analysis will utilize this terminology, rather than phrasing such as “art of war” (typically evoking the idea of military manuals), for the greater degree of precision it provides, as well as the breadth of its scope. Further, this terminology has long been 5 accepted as standard nomenclature by the Western just War Theory, whose layout will be used as the common comparative feature. The selection of these particular theories of vastly different cultural, religious, geographical, historical, and social contexts is intended to demonstrate the general similarities in conceptions of war. From within these elements, the analysis will extrapolate the war theories in their ideal form – rather than the particular historical instantiations. In this way, the analysis seeks to break free of the misinterpretation and misuse of war theory which has so frequently been utilized for the sake of military expediency and pragmatism. In light of the recent wars throughout the Middle East and the claims of ends justifying the means from the religious and non-religious sources alike, this focus on the ideal theories is all the more necessary to provide a backdrop against which the modern interpretations may later be considered. The Western theory, unlike its Islamic and Chinese counterparts, will be presented in its modern, as well as historical form. The difference of approach is based on the discontinuity characterizing the Western theory, and the lack of a coherent “classical” theory – a problem absent in both Chinese and Islamic contexts. While the three theories all include similar components, the difference in the cultural approach to their arrangement differs. In order to provide a useful comparative methodology, the analysis will utilize the modern Western conception of war requirements, which provides a clear outline of the various elements of a just war. Though the theories may have similar rules governing warfare, as will be demonstrated below, the underlying causes governing their application are vastly disparate. The primary reason for the underlying differences lies in their distinctive theories of justice and state, as well as their 6 differing historical contexts, undergirding the theories of war. Consequently, the analysis will first focus on contextual elements shaping the war theories. It will examine the specific developmental context arising from historical issues, as well as the competing conceptions of state and notions of justice for each theory. Understanding the context of development will allow the war theories to arise holistically. The analysis will then turn to the theories themselves, particularly the right to make