Just and Unjust Wars

Many religious traditions distinguish between just and unjust wars. Those who follow a "just war" theory--either from their religious tradition or as a result of their own thinking--believe they should fight only in wars which meet their definition of a just war. If you follow a "just war" theory and you believe that you would realistically be called upon to fight in what you consider a "just war," you don't qualify as a CO under military regulations as confirmed in the Gillette case.

Most just war thinking is designed to prevent wars, not to help governments to rationalize them, but phrases like "just war" and "just cause" are often misused. (The US invasion of Panama in 1989 was actually called "Operation Just Cause.") Just war theories also often try to help soldiers decide between right and wrong actions once war has started--for example, by forbidding deliberate killing of civilians.

In the West, the Christian just war theory, which goes back to St. Augustine in the 4th Century, is the best-known. Christian theologians do not agree on exactly what the standards for a just war may be, or how many of them there are. The most common "just war" standards, however, are the eight below. It may be helpful to see how they apply to some recent wars.

• War must be the last resort after all other possible solutions have been tried and failed.
• The reason for the war must be to redress rights actually violated or to defend against unjust demands backed by force.
• The war must be openly and legally declared by a lawful government.
• There must be a reasonable chance of winning.
• Soldiers must try to distinguish between armies and civilians and never kill civilians on purpose.
• The means used in fighting the war must be "proportionate" to the end sought. The good to be done by the war must outweigh the evil which the war would do.
• The winner must never require the utter humiliation of the loser.

Go to next page