Just War Theory: Augustine and Aquinas, and Terrorism

It was Tertullian who asked: What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Unlike Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan advised Christians not to withdraw from the world. Augustine (354-430), following his mentor Ambrose, writes that it is part of Christian duty to work for justice in the world. Ambrose as well as Augustine reject self-defence as appropriate reason for war. However, both of them considered it as Christian obligation to defend the third party nation from aggressor. Augustine thus held that war is justified only under certain conditions-- such as, defending against an unjust oppressor, protecting or rescuing innocent victims in hostile territory, and defending an ally and similar situations. Further, Augustine gave instructions on how to use force, and not just when war is justified. So the question of “when” and “how” were addressed.

Thomas Aquinas ( 1225-1274) too was not a pacifist. Aquinas laid down three fundamental guidelines for a war to be just: legitimate authority, just cause and right intention. For Aquinas, declaration of war by a legitimate authority was an extremely important condition for he feared that if princes and nobles could declare war for some petty reasons, chaos will reign supreme. Departing from the viewpoint of Augustine, Aquinas was of the view that self-defence was a legitimate reason for war. Thus, when an emperialistic nation/kingdom invades another nation/kingdom, fighting back to protect its territory from the aggressor is a just war. By similar token, waging war for emperialistic expansion of territory would be unjust.

It is important to note that even in situation when it is just to wage war, non-combatants or civilians do not come under attack. The respect for the sanctity of this innocent lives must be safeguarded. The (natural) right of the innocent lives insist that nation-states that go to war observe this right with utmost respect. In present day situation, if nation-state that go to war (on terrorism!) would not distinguish between non-combatants and combatants, how would we differentiate between an act of terrorist group and non terrorist group. Being a nation state or non-state actor do not provide immunity to being called labelled a non-terrorist group. Whether it is US invasion of Iraq or Sri Lankan govt's war on Tamil Tiger or Indian Govt counter-terrorism efforts, army officers or politicians whose orders and policies deliberately killed or injured or tortured non-combatants to achieve their political ends must be brought to the court for trial and appropriate sentence given.

In any war, people are killed and there is loss of resources. And Bible does not endorse war. However, for the sake of lesser evil there arises situations when war has to be fought. The choice, therefore, is about two situations where there would be casualty and loss, and yet as Christians we choose that which would result in lesser casualty and loss or greater good through intervention. The end purpose thus is for greater good!