Since the UN does not provide a definition of the ‘just war’, it is interesting to see the ancient take on the matter.
The Greeks contributed little. For Plato, war was necessary for the creation and survival of the city, but it was not its ultimate purpose: that was peace. For Aristotle, life consisted of three arenas of activity: war for the sake of peace, work for the sake of leisure, and necessary and useful activities to demonstrate one’s worth.
But Cicero (d. 43 bc) understood war in ways that have shaped our own understanding. His starting point was that there were two ways of settling an issue: by discussion, or by force. As he said, ‘the former [is] appropriate for human beings, the latter for animals’. Further, although Rome always marked a just war with a religious ceremony, Cicero thought a just war should flow not from religious sanction but from natural law.
The search, then, was on for a iusta causa to rectify the rupture of mankind’s natural state, peace. Clearly, self-defence was the most obvious, but equally no war would be just unless the enemy had been given the chance to offer redress. War should advance some good beyond merely self-interested expansion. Other legitimate reasons for going to war, he suggested, should be as a response to an earlier wrong, such as an attack on allies or ambassadors, or to a breach of treaties; or against those who supported an enemy of Rome (which might involve punishing an enemy). Further, Cicero believed that Rome must fight honourably, must not involve civilians and must show mercy to the conquered, though Roman rules of war permitted the seizure of property and enslavement. Most significantly, the word ‘revenge’ plays almost no part.
But Cicero’s world was torn apart by civil wars in the 1st century bc, triggering his reflections. He lamented that those unjust wars had destroyed the republic and ruefully commented: ‘As long as the sway of the Roman people was maintained by the bestowal of benefits, not by injustice, our sovereignty might then have been termed patronage, rather than domination, of the world.’
Cause for thought?
Comments