It seems the British government stands on the verge of yet another foreign military adventure and, as ever, it is accompanied by profuse proclamations of piety and moral imperative. So, I thought it worth considering the old precept of the Just War (Bellum Iustum), as laid out by the theologians of the School of Salamanca (cribbed from Wikipedia), a school much revered in Austro-Libertarian circles for its pioneering work in economics.
Growing from Aquinas arguments was the School of Salamanca, which expanded on Thomistic understanding of natural law and just war. Given that war is one of the worst evils suffered by mankind, the adherents of the School reasoned that it ought to be resorted to only when it was necessary in order to prevent an even greater evil. A diplomatic agreement is preferable, even for the more powerful party, before a war is started. Examples of “just war” are:
- In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success.
- Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.
- War to punish a guilty enemy.
A war is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:
- It is necessary that the response be commensurate to the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
- Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose a government that is waging, or is about to wage, an unjust war.
- Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.
- It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.
Under this doctrine, expansionist wars, wars of pillage, wars to convert infidels or pagans, and wars for glory are all inherently unjust.
By the way, I am not asserting ‘Just War Theory’ provides the authentic libertarian position, for one thing, it seems to presuppose a state authority, which many libertarians would not accept. Nor does it end all dispute, even if it is accepted in principle, but it does provide a framework to judge the weasel-words of our politicians, who seize upon certain elements of the above definition, with scant regard for the others.