Obama’s Peace Prize acceptance speech was delightfully complex.  He demonstrated yet again his willingness and ability to think about complex — and politically unattractive – middle way ideas.¹  I have great respect for the murky middle and anyone who dares to linger there.  In this case Obama spoke of the justification for war while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.  Hmmm.  Murky indeed.

Please read Mr. Obama’s entire speech² before you trust the criticism or praise of the pundits who tend to report only self-serving bits and pieces, largely out of context.

For my part, I am intrigued that Obama invoked just war theory.  My purpose here is not to critique Obama’s speech, but to share with you the principles of just war theory.  I think it’s important to know what he was talking about, and to understand that the principles of a so-called “just” war were articulated centuries ago by theologians (very cool dudes), not politicians or warriors, although sometimes its hard to tell the difference.

What is a so-called “just” war? 

The principles of a just war were first articulated by theologian Augustine of Hippo in the 4th C. and later refined by theologian Thomas Aquinas in the 16th C.  “Just War” principles describe what needs to be true before a nation enters a war (jus ad bellum), and what needs to be true about how the nation does the war (jus in bello).³

To be considered just, these things must be true before a war is to be launched (jus ad bellum) ⁴ : 

• the war must be declared openly by a proper sovereign authority (e.g., the governing authority of the political community in question);
• the war must have a just cause (e.g., defense of the common good or a response to grave injustice);
• the warring state must have just intentions (i.e., it must wage the war for justice rather than for self-interest);
• the aim of the war must be the establishment of a just peace; 
• there must be a reasonable chance of success;
• force must be used as a last resort; and
• the expected benefits of war must outweigh its anticipated costs.    

Once a war is started, for it to be considered a just war these things must be true during the war (jus in bello):

• the warring nation’s actions must be proportional to its combat objectives, and they must produce more good than evil for both sides; and  
• the warring nation must discriminate between soldiers and noncombatants.

Mull over these principles of a so-called “just” war.  Consider these questions:  

• Have we always followed these principles in the past? 
• Are we now following these principles? 
• How does one accept with integrity the Nobel Peace Prize while also suggesting that war (albeit “just”) is necessary in our society?

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, Ph.D (2009).

1. See my previous articles about middle way thinking:  Dandelions Seeds: Problem-solving from the middle , Transformational Leadership: Effective Change In The Murky Middle, and Meet Me In The Middle,  Back To The Murky Middle: Inviting our atheist friends , Doubt Is Good, Certainty Is Bad, I Think ,  Doubt Is Good, Certainty Is Bad, I Think (Part II) , and As Far As I Know , among others you’ll find in the Murky Middle  category.
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.text.html?ref=opinion
3. Just War. (2009).  Encyclopædia Britannica.  Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Multimedia Edition.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica. This is one easy source. The principles of Just War Theory can be found in many places described by many people!
4. The last three principles were added by theologians and other scholars since World War II