Customer Reviews

When War is Unjust: Being Honest in Just-War Thinking

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Though a pacifist, John Yoder approaches the Just War tradition on its own terms and respectfully outlines the questions raised by the tradition itself. This is a must read for anyone seeking to apply the Just War Tradition into their own lifestyle and politics.

Yoder does well to hold our feet to the fire. He does well as a pacifist not to argue against the Just War Tradition. In the purest sense he upholds it and affirms it for those of us in the tradition. We are not let off the hook with sloppy reasoning. A good, short read.

Yoder walks the reader through the evolution and weaknesses of the just(ifiable) war tradition in this book. Although a pacifist himself, Yoder was fair to the JWT so much so that I thought he was a JWT believer himself until the last 1/4 of the book, which was the most interesting part for me.

Yoder is concerned with just war tradition's utilitarianism and its tendency towards slippery sloping, e.g. Michael Walzer's moments of 'supreme emergency' argument that justifies aerial bombing of German cities in World War II. In giving one concession after another in the name of 'necessity', just war tradition risks becoming a mere tool for justifying wars, rather than a restraint for preventing and/or mitigating them.

He poses this challenge for just war theorists: "If the tradition which claims that war may be justified does not also admit that it could be unjustified, the affirmation is not morally serious".

Originally based on a series of lectures presented at the University of Notre Dame while a lecturer there When War is Unjust is an attempt on Yoder's part to highlight the way in which Just War Theory has so rarely been applied in contemporary conflicts. In doing so Yoder offers a brief primer on JWT's history and components. JWT has, argues Yoder, been reduced to "just cause" with a result that it is little more than a political PR exercise for a nation's Realist political strategy. That is a travesty of JWT which should, irrespective of where one stands, be able to say of a particular conflict this is a justifiable war (and particular actions within a war are justifiable).

Yoder also asks searching questions as to whether particular conflicts were Just and whether, in a nuclear age, any war can be just. More than anything else When War is Unjust is a call to recover the ethical seriousness of JWT. As Yoder himself writes (p. 80): "if the tradition which claims that war may be justified does not also admit that in particular cases it may not be justified, the affirmation is not morally serious." In fact, Yoder goes further than this, violence must be an exceptional response (the principle of last resort): "A Christian who prepares the case for a justifiable war without being equally prepared for the negative case has not soberly weighed the prima facie presumption that any violence is wrong until the case for the exception has been made."

Of course, as (arguably) the leading theological proponent of peace church pacifism in the latter twentieth century some may question Yoder's entry in the JWT terrain given he does not accept the underlying assumptions on which it is based. In this new edition of the book however there is included a response by Drew Christiansen who took over the course from Yoder on which the book is based. Christiansen's response is, roughly stated, "Yoder, you're right! JWT has for too long been ineffective because it has (illegitimately) been used to support some wars but has rarely been the focus of dissent but we're getting there, JWT theory has been taken more seriously within the Catholic communion". In short, Yoder's arguments while those of a friendly critic are not alien to JWT advocates. In his closing paragraphs Christiansen actually goes further than Yoder (in this book); Christiansen argues that it as a religious theory Christians in the world, government and armed forces should recover the moral seriousness of JWT; JWT is not just or even primarily directed against leaders but, today, is directed to the all participants - therefore, Christiansen closes with a call for citizen's to take seriously their duties under JWT (emphasis added): "In sum, civilian leaders and officials, like military personnel, should be prepared to bear the onus of selective conscientious objection. While the price one may pay today is not as heavy as it once was, the effectiveness of the just-war tradition as a system of moral constraints on the use of force depends very much on the willingness of conscientious men and women to pay a price for their moral convictions."

Since the first publication of the book the political landscape has changed; the rhetoric of war is less about just cause and self-defence and more about the "responsibility to protect", otherwise known as humanitarian intervention. Unfortunately this subject is (understandably) given scant attention here and therefore the usefulness of the book is somewhat diminished. Nonetheless When War is Unjust is a pretty good analysis of JWT is a useful resource.

Yoder is not an advocate for the just war tradition (JWT) himself. The approach of this book is more of an accountability towards his fellow theologians and scholars who advocate the tradition. Yoder is wanting to define the JWT and then question whether its advocates even live up to its teachings.

The JWT itself does not preach that war is good. War is the lesser evil of what would happen if war was not carried out. What Yoder does is compare the JWT origins through Augustine and the middle ages to the current context of democracy, technological advancement, nuclear power and patriotism. Yoder presents a very interesting case indeed in the transformation of just war theorizing from the princes and knights through the reformation to the JWT as law (Grotius) and Just War as subordinate to national interests and military necessity.

Machiavelli's national interest turned JWT on its head. Yoder challenges whether the JWT even matters if national interest and military necessity will trump it in every case. Even the realist would claim that morality is helpful in national interest. Some would even argue that if given two options, one of more questionable morality and slightly more advantages, the moral interest would trump the less moral.

This reasoning still leaves Yoder unsatisfied looking for a binary solution to just war. Either a war is just or it is not, and therefore should not be pursued. Certainly the realist world has given the JWT a hard time but its influence is ever-present in military codes and international treaties. Will it ever trump national interest? I doubt it. Yoder wants to know that his fellow Christians are, "neither idolaters sacrificing their fellow creatures to the absolute value of national interest... nor crusaders..." but limit war as the lesser evil. But then, in a counter-factual, who's to know whether a war was the lesser evil?

Yoder wrote a good book to support non-violence concept. We do need to think about how to use non-violence to solve some conflicts between 2 contries or states before we beginning a war.