 |
|
| |
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
known before. Also, the complexity of international relations can make an incipient
war develop into full-scale war. Modern weapons "can inflict immense and
indiscriminate havoc which goes far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense."(42)
Because of this reality total warfare is most definitely condemned following Pope John
XXIII's and Pope Paul VI's statements on this matter. Also, modern weapons are seen
by the Council as not even justified in a defensive war with their indiscriminate
destruction.
On the other hand, not all warfare is condemned. The Council justified "the right of a
nation to defend itself by a discriminate and proportionate use of force as a last
resort."(43) The Council does not mention the Just War Theory but uses some themes
recognizable from it such as: 1. War is to be used only after all efforts for peace have
failed. 2. Government leaders have the duty to protect their people's interests - the
common good. 3. A right intention rules out force being used for political or military
objectives. 4. Not all is fair during war. 5. Indiscriminate killing of the innocent is
prohibited.
So after the Council the idea of war comes down to this: "war is not morally justifiable
. . .to punish an offense or. . .to recover a thing, but is justifiable only. . .to repel injury
and aggression."(44) Any strategy with the intention of attacking cities or large areas
along with their populations cannot be morally tolerated, even as a last resort.
Further developments among Bishops and Popes to the present involve a Catholic
policy where nuclear deterrence can only be a temporary solution. The Catholic goal is
to de-nuclearize the world. Arms control, even as an important contribution to present
day problems, is not enough. Only a strategy that tends toward disarmament is an
acceptable strategy for the Church.
Two principles from the Just War Theory stand out in all of this modern day analysis.
War is limited by the immunity of noncombatants and the general principle of
proportionality. The former limits the widespread destruction of ABC warfare. The
latter even limits legitimate self-defense.
The relatively recent Gulf War provided moralists with a modern day war example to
analyze. Francis Winters claimed that "on balance the theory failed the test of
providing wise judgment."(45) Another author thought the theory could be applied to
it with some adaptations. Although at the same time he recognized a "serious problem
in how we understand and apply the notion of noncombatant immunity. . .(and that)
the principle of proportionality is all too likely to raise large questions that require
political judgments and do not yield definite answers."(46) These problems of
applying the theory would seem to point to the argument already mentioned that the
Just War Theory cannot yield a determinate result.
The modern war debate is far from over. Some talk of a limited nuclear war. Others
claim that the limitation of war is impossible. One thing is for sure - if the limited war
people are wrong the destruction of the world will end the debate!
Conclusion
In this investigation we have tried to provide a general survey of the history of the Just
War Theory with some of the arguments for and against it. As we have seen St.
Augustine is considered the originator of the theory. St. Thomas Aquinas and other
Middle Age authors further clarified its justification. The proper authority, just causes
and intentions for waging a just war were further elaborated on at this time. Victoria
and Suarez in the 16th and 17th centuries fully developed the Just War Theory. They
distinguished between offensive and defensive wars. Also they added two more
conditions to the theory: war as a last resort and the proper manner of fighting a war.
From there we move into the modern age of warfare with its potential for massive
destruction. The Popes of this World War century rule out aggressive wars leaving
only defensive wars. The principles of proportionality and immunity of noncombatants
are an important contribution of the Just War Theory to the modern situation. Whether
or not the theory itself is still applicable to war at present is still being debated.
On the question of the justification of war different arguments are put forward. Both
the Old and New Testament are used to show war is not against the will of God. Also
of importance related with this is the special authority given to government leaders to
safeguard the natural order and the common good. Another argument put forward is to
reason from the rights of the individual to those of the State. Finally an appeal is made
to the history, teaching and practice of the Church.
Those against war argue mainly from Sacred Scripture, especially the New Testament.
The main claim made is that Jesus taught and lived a nonviolent position. St. Paul and
the primitive Church continued this tradition. The Constantinian era compromised
Christian thought by identifying the Church with the State. Nevertheless, examples of
pacifist movements can be seen in later Church history. A different form of argument
especially brought forward with St. Thomas More is the possibility of a just war in
theory but impossible in reality. Others attack a Just War Theory as irrelevant in
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pldoc.pisz.plpdf.pisz.plcs-sysunia.htw.pl
|
| |
|
|
|
| Podobne |
| |
|
| |
|