Can War Ever Be Truly Just? BY ELENE SURMELASHVILI (Reichberg, 2010, pg. 225). Importantly, Aquinas emphasized that war is a conflict between combatants, highlighting the duty to protect noncombatants such as women, children, and other civilians (Jourdain and Crayon, 1858).
A state’s decision to wage war can stem from a multitude of complex motivations – ranging from the imperative of national security to factors rooted in religion, geography, or economics, often intricately entwined. Just war theory, a philosophical doctrine of military ethics, seeks to determine the conditions in which waging war is justifiable. This framework has two main branches: Jus ad bellum, which addresses ‘the right to wage war’, and jus in bello, which explores ‘rightful conduct in war’. Less often discussed, but equally important, is jus post bellum, referring to the duty of aggressors to re-build states post-war.
Aquinas’ ideas sparked a debate as to whether waging war can ever be just. Opponents of the so-called Thomistic Just War Thesis often cite the historical example of the Crusades to highlight how even wars that seemingly meet Aquinas’ criteria, could run into moral dilemmas. The Crusades were originally promoted as a pilgrimage for the ‘Holy Land’. However, its aims quickly evolved – to wage a defense war to regain captured Christian territory (Maoz and Henderson, 2020, 20). These notions were engrained into the minds of the highly religious youth, who enthusiastically took up arms in ‘defense’ of their Christian neighbors. In 1095-96, Pope Urban II sent the first crusader armies on dual missions: one to attack the Muslims who were at war with the Byzantine Empire, and the other to recapture Jerusalem from Islamic rulers. (Chevedden, 2008, pg.183)
The philosophical discourse surrounding warfare focussed on discussing “justifications for entering the war, and […] appropriate activities within war” (Cuomo, 1996). In the 13th century, the priest and philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, entered this debate, arguing that the act of waging war is not a universal moral wrong (Aquinas in Reichberg, 2010, pg. 219). In his bestknown work, the Summa Theologica, Aquinas consolidated earlier Western just war theories and developed criteria under which waging war could be morally justifiable. First, war must be undertaken under the leadership of a legitimate sovereign. Second, the conflict must be fought for a ‘just’ cause, for example in response to a wrong done by the attacked. Third, those engaged in combat must bear moral intent - to promote good and prevent evil. In Aquinas’ eyes, a war that meets these criteria serves the greater good, and can therefore be deemed just
Considering the Thomistic just war thesis, both primary reasons for starting the Crusades could be deemed morally justifiable: they received papal authorization, and were framed as defensive actions that aimed at serving the higher good of liberating Christians from Muslim oppressors. However, over time, the Crusades evolved into large-scale wars which resulted in tragic deaths of innocent people. The Crusades demonstrate how
20
