Just War Theory
Source: Augustine, City of God, Book XIX; Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II Q.40; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, 1625; Geneva Conventions, 1949
Finding
The just war tradition constrains warfare by moral principles. Augustine: war justified only to restore peace. Aquinas codified three conditions for jus ad bellum: legitimate authority, just cause, right intention. Later additions: proportionality, probability of success, last resort. Jus in bello requires discrimination (combatants vs. civilians) and proportionality (force not exceeding military necessity). Every violation of just war theory maps to a specific property.
Properties Violated (when the theory is breached)
Alignment: wars fought for conquest under the banner of liberation. Proportion: firebombing of Dresden (~25,000 dead) and carpet bombing of Cambodia debated on proportionality grounds. Honesty: regime change marketed as humanitarian intervention. Humility: only rightful authority may declare war. Non-fabrication: fabricated provocations (Gulf of Tonkin, 1964, where the second attack likely did not occur) launch wars.
Just war theory is the attempt to apply all five properties to organized violence. Each violation maps to a specific property with specific historical instances.
Connections
- The Atomic Bomb — the central debate about Hiroshima IS a proportionality debate
- Genocide — genocide violates all five properties simultaneously and maximally
- The Arms Race — MAD is a just-war paradox: peace through threat of total destruction
- Redundancy in Aviation — both apply structural principles to life-and-death systems
- Corruption — fabricated casus belli parallels fabricated justification for private gain
Status
Augustine and Aquinas are primary sources. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (1977). Geneva Conventions are international law. Gulf of Tonkin: Moise (1996) and NSA declassified documents (2005). The mapping is this project’s interpretation.
The mapping to the five properties is this project’s structural interpretation.