Just War

In his book War, how long? Gerard Bodifée wonders whether we should not all become conscientious objectors if we are once again asked to go to war against some earthly power. Bodifée refers to the enormous destructive power that emanates from contemporary wars, not least through the use of landmines that still claim victims a hundred years after the war. His suggestion is also completely in line with the nonviolence that Jesus Christ advocated in his life. 

The proposal sounds completely utopian. However, we have already partially reached this level of conscientious objection. If the Leuven authorities were to ask the people of Leuven today to go to war against the people of Brussels, they would certainly refuse, even if this would put order in Brussels policy. Just like if the Belgians would be asked to fight the Dutch. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be conscientious objectors. So a lot has changed in five hundred years. Within Europe, we already have a serious peace dividend: we no longer have to buy weapons for use within Europe and we are therefore ready for a European united army with enormous economies of scale. Or can't we just renounce war?

Unfortunately, we are not that far yet. We still see ourselves going to war against a number of states that we usually label as rogue states. There is still a justified distrust. When the Prime Minister of Belgium stated that there should be an EU envoy for Russia, my first reaction was: "Isn't there one yet?" Many political leaders in Europe do not actually want to negotiate with Russia. We can safely say that the war in Ukraine is not only the result of an autocratic policy in Russia, but also of a stubborn unwillingness to have talks between the diplomatic corpses in Europe and in Russia.

In the Armed Man,  we already saw that the Church Fathers came up with the idea of the just war in twenty centuries of Christianity. A just war had to meet the following criteria.

Just Cause: The war must be defensive, aimed at stopping a "lasting, serious and certain damage" inflicted by an aggressor.

Legitimate Authority: War must be declared and controlled by a competent, lawful authority (e.g., a state or sovereign).

Right Intention: The war is waged to restore peace and justice, not for territorial gain or power.

Last resort: All peaceful alternatives (diplomacy, negotiations, sanctions) must be exhausted.

Reasonable Hope for Success: The war cannot be a suicide attempt without a chance of success.

Proportionality: The damage caused by the war must not exceed the harm that is being addressed

Of course, it can happen that an aggressor does not meet the conditions, but that a country under aggression does. You could argue that Russia does not meet the conditions, but Ukraine does. Yet one can also say that there is a problem with Ukraine. There is no reasonable hope of success and there are concerns about proportionality. It seems to me that the damage to the country is greater than if Ukraine were to cede some territories, even if that goes against the sovereignty of the peoples. I think the argument that concessions encourage aggressors is too weak when it comes to avoiding further bloodshed. The economic cost is already incalculable.

I also refer to my blog Pray for Peace.

Picture: Tyne Cot cemetery Zonnebeke, November 2025 ©Wim Lahaye