Just War

Oliver O’Donovan’s Just War Revisited (reviewed in the August 13 TLS ) presents just war as “a means of delivering judgment when all other means of judging a dispute have failed. Since war arises in the absence of an adequate formal authority to resolve a dispute, armed conflict can be reconceived as an extraordinary extension of ordinary acts of judgment. But if follows that a just belligerent must pursue war in a judicial spirit” (this summary from the reviewer, John Kenrick, OP). Several things follow from this insight. If war is an act of judgment, it “must be a truthful pronouncement on what has been done, and an effective foundation for what is to be done, and this rule applies to all decisions at whatever moment they arise. It applies to the decision to go to war, to the decision to put an end to war, and to the multitude of decisions about how to conduct a war.” Further, war as a judicial act implies “a responsibility to preserve the rights of both parties equally.” And it means that the innocent and guilty must be treated differently – hence, the rule prohibiting war against non-combatants. O’Donovan, by the evidence of this review at any rate, continues to be the most interesting and profound Christian political theologian writing today.