When is war justified?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hugo Grotius held that war was so "horrible that nothing but the highest necessity or the depest charity can make it right..."

The two classes of causes that he thought to be fit were:

Self Preservation,

Intervention to prevent dreadful persecution in another polity (though he noted that this one, historically, was also used to fig-leaf wars of greed).


Jonathan Swift extends this list slightly to include:

to check the overgrown power of some ambitious neighbor,

to recover what has been unjustly taken from one's own,

to revenge some ingury,

to assist an ally, or

to defend one's self upon invasion.

This latter he describes as the condition which admits of war almost without limit since the entirety of the state is at stake in such a contest.



What are your thoughts here?


Seamus

[Kagemusha]

I mostly agree to what the previos statements state,but im bit worried about the justification of war to recover what has been taken from ones own.That is the same sentence then" in a previous peace the seeds of next war are planted".
If i think of my country for example that statement would give Finland a legimite reason to Declare war to Russia.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Precisely the kind of question I want folks to grapple with in response to my initial post. I included both the Grotian and Swiftian definitions to spark discussion.

Seamus

[Marcellus]

Well, here's what I think of some of the justifications put forward for war:

to check the overgrown power of some ambitious neighbor

Only if they are a direct threat to your safety. Attacking a growing neighbouring power simply because you are jealous of them or because you fear that they will become more powerful than you cannot be justified, unless there is a good reason to suspect that this greater power will be used against you.

to recover what has been unjustly taken from one's own

Only as long as it was taken fairly recently. The fact that a territory was taken by force from you centuries ago cannot justify war

to revenge some ingury

It's got to be a pretty big injury. Otherwise it's just petty revenge.

to assist an ally

Only as long as they're in the right. I don't believe in blindly going to help an ally even if they're clearly in the wrong.

Well, that's my view at least.

[Kagemusha]

Thank you Seamus.Let us see what other patrons have to say about the subject.

[econ21]

I think this is a Backroom topic. I started a virtually identical one a few months back:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46969

But I confess I did not make much progress in terms of my own thinking. I recall appreciating one of Pindar's contributions, when he said there may be circumstances in which war is justified, but it might not be prudent to wage it.

If we want to keep this topic in the Monastery (and, no offence to the my fellow Backroom patrons, but the Backroom is not always the best place to go for enlightenment), may be we should re-orient it towards what wars in history were justified or were not justified. I suspect modern morality has narrowed the criteria for justifiable wars so that many in previous centuries would not be deemed just now.

[Petrus]

Hugo Grotius held that war was so "horrible that nothing but the highest necessity or the depest charity can make it right..."

The two classes of causes that he thought to be fit were:

Self Preservation,

Intervention to prevent dreadful persecution in another polity (though he noted that this one, historically, was also used to fig-leaf wars of greed).


Jonathan Swift extends this list slightly to include:

to check the overgrown power of some ambitious neighbor,

to recover what has been unjustly taken from one's own,

to revenge some ingury,

to assist an ally, or

to defend one's self upon invasion.

This latter he describes as the condition which admits of war almost without limit since the entirety of the state is at stake in such a contest.

What are your thoughts here?

Seamus

Self Preservation,

This is a very broad definition that can mean anything so no.

Intervention to prevent dreadful persecution in another polity

This can be a good definition but the interpretations that can be given to it are very dangerous and war can very easily become worst than what it is supposed to prevent.

to check the overgrown power of some ambitious neighbor,

Many interpretations possible here too. Was Great Britain justified in attacking Napoleonic's France? Yes, as it would have been an overhelming danger sooner or later.

Would Mexico be justified to attack the US due to it's overgrown military power? This is ridiculous.

to recover what has been unjustly taken from one's own,

As something can only be taken to a country by war, this would mean that war is neverneding and always justified, so no.

to revenge some ingury,

Are you allowed to killed someone that insults you? No.

So why should a country be?

to assist an ally

This has nothing to do with justice but is usualy done as allys support each others by contract, war being justified or not.

to defend one's self upon invasion.

This is the only one that is always justified in my opinion, and it poses the problem of other justifications : if a country makes a justified war to another and invades it then the invaded country becomes justified in it's own war.

In which case we have a war justified in both sides.

Problematic when you speak of justice i think.

[Advo-san]

What a difficult subject you 've started Seamus... If I 've learned one thing at the University is that there is no Justice, in this world at least. Meaning, an event won't ever be black or white. It will be black from one point of view and white form another, gray from a third etc.. Since there is no Justice, but only judges, there can't be a Justified war, or an Un-just war either... So, IMHO justified war is a war that has the approval of the U.N. General Assembly and the U.N. Security Counsil, and the I.C.J. of Hague decides that it is justified. IIRC article 2 of the UN Declaration sets the criteria of justified war, but it has been a long time since I 've read it and I 'm not sure.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Interesting topic. My view can be summarized in just a few words, for once :

the good old statement that the goal justifies the means, but with one addition: bear in mind that if you made the world better by killing 1 million people, then the goal you achieved was to kill 1 million people and make the world for the rest of the people a better place. In short - the means are part of the goal, therefore the goal very seldom justify the means, when people normally think the goal does.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there's no non-total war. If you start a war with the plan to fight it according to some kinds of rules of honor, with limited violence, you'll soon find yourself in the middle of a serious, total war in most cases. If you attack with little aggression, the enemy will strike back with full strength because your not fighting a total war makes you weaker. Then you'll be forced to fight a total war in defense. Therefore, you should only go to war when you're prepared that it'll result in a total war, because it will, in most cases.

[caesar44]

QUOTE=Simon Appleton
I think this is a Backroom topic.

Agreed !

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I considered the Backroom for this, but would prefer a discussion based on historical reference or accepted authorities -- such as those cited in my original post. If this topic is shifted to the Backroom, it will metamorphisize into yet ANOTHER Iraq/U.S. aggresssiveness discussion. I would prefer the answers generated (including those above) in the somewhat more rarified and scholarly air of the Monastery.

Seamus

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Seamus Fermanagh]
scholarly air of the Monastery.


Indeed .

[GoreBag]

I don't really believe in justification. Make war when you think you can get away with it. This is historically how war was made, anyway. Justifications were really more like excuses.

[Gregoshi]

The contributers to this thread will determine if this topic stays here or gets shipped off to the Backroom. Keep it "scholarly" and it will stay. Draw upon historical events to support your position.

[GoreBag]

Alright.

Well, the warlord mentality carried itself well into the middle ages, where kings struggled for greater power against one another by any means necessary. The Total War series is entirely a representation of this.

The Crusades, for example, were often taken up by kings or lords who were more interested in rich foreign lands and new estates than the religious importance of retaking the holy land or converting the pagans.

[King Henry V]

When the Argentinians liberate some islands from their evil opressor! Even when they don't want to be liberated.