Violence (Leaving Cert Religious Education): Revision Notes
'Just War' Tradition and Legitimisation of Violence
Historical development and purpose
-
The concept that warfare should follow moral principles traces back to ancient Greek philosophy, which examined whether violence could ever be justified to defend order and promote the common good.
-
St Augustine of Hippo shaped this thinking in his 5th century work Civitas Dei (The City of God). Augustine grappled with the Gospel's message of non-violence from Matthew 5:38-48 ("turn the other cheek"), arguing that whilst war remains sinful, it might sometimes be morally acceptable as the "lesser of two evils" when it prevents greater harm and restores justice.
-
Augustine emphasised that loving one's neighbour could require defending vulnerable people from attack, though loving one's enemies imposed strict moral limits on force used.
-
In the 13th century, St Thomas Aquinas developed Augustine's ideas into clearer criteria, establishing the conditions under which war could be considered just. Later theologians like Francisco Suarez continued refining the theory.
The theory's fundamental purpose is to prevent wars by establishing strict conditions rather than encouraging them. It assumes war is evil but attempts to determine when limited, defensive force might be tolerated.
Three foundational moral principles
The Just War tradition seeks to balance three core principles of moral reasoning:
1. The sanctity of human life: Human life holds sacred value and must never be taken lightly. Any act of killing requires serious moral justification.
2. State responsibility for citizens: Governments bear the responsibility of protecting their people's lives and rights. Failing to respond to aggression would neglect this fundamental duty.
3. Force as protection: In extreme circumstances when peaceful approaches have failed, limited and proportionate force may become necessary to prevent atrocities or defend justice.
Importantly, this theory applies only to states or legitimate governments, not individuals, vigilantes, or terrorist groups. It guides nations on the morally correct response to conflict, whilst always maintaining that war should be a last resort.
Conditions for declaring war (Jus ad bellum)
The theory establishes two main categories: jus ad bellum (justice in going to war) and jus in bello (justice in conducting war).
Just cause
War must be fought for a serious moral reason, such as repelling invasion, defending innocent people, or correcting grave injustice. Wars motivated by conquest, revenge, or economic gain are unjust.
Without just cause, war becomes aggression rather than defence.
Proper authority
Only legitimate governments or competent public authorities can declare war. Individuals, private militias, or terrorist groups cannot wage a just war.
This matters because war affects entire nations, so decisions must be made by accountable leaders representing the people.
Right intention
The aim must be restoring peace and justice, not humiliating, dominating, or enriching the aggressor. Even with just cause, hidden motives like hatred or greed make war unjust.
Intention influences how war is conducted and whether peace is genuinely pursued.
Last resort
War can only be declared when all other peaceful options—diplomacy, negotiation, sanctions—have been attempted and failed.
This criterion exists because war causes immense suffering, so every alternative path must be explored first.
Reasonable chance of success
War should not be launched without realistic hope of achieving its aims. Fighting without hope of success causes needless suffering.
This criterion prevents futile sacrifice whilst ensuring responsibility to protect soldiers and civilians.
Proportionality of ends
The overall good expected from war must outweigh the destruction it will cause. If fighting would cause greater harm than the harm it aims to prevent, the war becomes unjust.
This ensures war remains a lesser evil rather than a greater one.
Conditions for conducting war (Jus in bello)
Discrimination (Non-combatant immunity)
Clear distinctions must be made between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians, medical staff, and prisoners of war must never be deliberately targeted.
Protecting innocent people reflects the moral principle that human dignity persists even during war.
Proportionality of means
Methods and weapons used must be proportionate to military objectives. Excessive force, indiscriminate attacks, or weapons of mass destruction are forbidden.
This prevents escalation and ensures military means remain aligned with moral ends.
Contemporary application: Russia-Ukraine War (2022-present)
Worked Example: Applying Just War Theory to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examining the Russia-Ukraine conflict through just war criteria reveals:
Just cause: Ukraine defends itself against invasion condemned by the UN. This aligns with just cause. Russia's claimed protection of Russian speakers is widely rejected as insufficient justification.
Proper authority: Both Ukraine and Russia are legitimate states, though legitimacy becomes undermined if other criteria aren't satisfied.
Right intention: Ukraine seeks to protect sovereignty and citizens. Russia's aims are disputed and widely viewed as expansionist rather than defensive.
Last resort: Ukraine pursued diplomacy (including Minsk accords) before invasion. Once attacked, self-defence became the only option.
Reasonable chance of success: With international aid, Ukraine has resisted effectively, though at high cost.
Proportionality of ends: Ukraine's defence aims to prevent occupation and greater suffering, supporting proportionality. Russia's large-scale destruction undermines this principle.
Discrimination and proportionality in conduct: Russia faces accusations of attacking civilian areas and infrastructure, condemned internationally as violations of jus in bello. Ukraine must also avoid targeting civilians, as both sides remain bound by these principles.
Conclusion: Ukraine's defence more closely fits Just War criteria, whilst Russia's invasion fails on just cause, right intention, and proportionality.
Legitimisation of violence
Beyond warfare, the tradition helps understand how violence becomes wrongly legitimised in other contexts:
Personal violence: Domestic abuse
How it's legitimised: Perpetrators may claim violence is necessary for "discipline," that victims provoked it, or that it's a private matter.
Why this fails: Domestic violence violates human dignity and bodily integrity. It remains illegal under Irish law (coercive control is a criminal offence) and damages families, traumatises children, and perpetuates cycles of violence.
Learning link: This demonstrates how individuals may falsely rationalise personal violence, but justice and peace require its rejection.
Structural violence: Apartheid in South Africa
How it was legitimised: The state claimed segregation maintained order, protected cultural identity, and ensured security.
Why this failed: Apartheid entrenched racial oppression and violated human rights, particularly equality before law and political participation.
Learning link: This shows how governments may disguise injustice using language of "order" and "security," making structural violence appear legitimate.
Evaluation of the tradition
Strengths
Key Advantages of Just War Theory:
- Provides clear moral framework for evaluating wars
- Protects civilians by emphasising discrimination and proportionality
- Emphasises war as last resort, keeping peace as the ultimate goal
Weaknesses
Critical Limitations:
- Criteria remain open to interpretation; both sides may claim to meet them
- Modern warfare (drones, nuclear weapons, cyberattacks) makes proportionality and discrimination harder to guarantee
- By permitting war under certain circumstances, it risks being used to justify rather than prevent conflict
Key Points to Remember:
- Just War theory originated in ancient Greek philosophy and was developed by Christian thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas to prevent rather than encourage wars
- Jus ad bellum sets six conditions for declaring war: just cause, proper authority, right intention, last resort, reasonable chance of success, and proportionality of ends
- Jus in bello requires discrimination between combatants/non-combatants and proportionate use of force during warfare
- Contemporary conflicts like Russia-Ukraine demonstrate how the theory applies to modern situations, with Ukraine's defence meeting criteria more closely than Russia's invasion
- Violence legitimisation occurs in personal contexts (domestic abuse) and structural contexts (apartheid), but justice demands rejecting these false justifications