In the Cold war era much of the attention of Christian ethics studies was focused on the issues surrounding nuclear weapons and their use. In the meantime, in a fragmenting world, the issue most commonly faced by nations, their governments and armies and those who oppose them is to do with internal struggles within their own borders. Also, where the cause of unrest is an ethnic minority seeking self-determination, such struggles may cross borders, but they are very often not state against state conflicts of the sort that the Just War criteria were developed to govern.
The question thus raised is whether, for the Christian, the Principles of the Just War can stand today, and can they be adapted to give guidance for the use of force in conflicts arising from minorities seeking redress of perceived hardships.
Current examples range from Northern Ireland to Chechnya, and from the Kurds to the peoples of South Sudan.
There follows a very brief summary of the Christian approach to the use of force over recent years: Non-resistance, Non-violent resistance or Violent resistance. The Christian pacifist position is questioned, leading to the judgement that, although some may be called to pacifism, it is God's will that nations and peoples should have the option to defend themselves and their vital (in the true sense of the word) interests with the use of minimum necessary force.
The meaning of 'minimum necessary force' is then closely considered.
Next the Just War criteria, as they are currently understood, are examined to test their applicability to conflict other than inter-state disputes, making a comparison between the application in the case of the Gulf War 1990-1991 and the plot against Hitler in 1943. Liberation movements are briefly considered (radical liberation theology, and the resistance to apartheid, for example).
It is deduced at this stage that although 'to go to war is always wrong, unless it is more wrong not to do so'
Finally, the threads are drawn together to adapt the Just War criteria for the situation of minorities seeking international support for their right to resort to arms, and suggest that this will always be very difficult to achieve, but should it be so? The cases of East Timor, South Sudan and Kosovo test the proposition.
The conclusion is the vital need for the Christian Church and for all democracies to take a lead in international determination and insistence to seek the way of equality and reconciliation rather than active or passive support for armed conflict except absolutely as a last resort, and then only when all the criteria are met and are seen to be met.
[Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Ethics Main Menu] [Home]