The primary subject of this book is the just war tradition, specifically its historical origin, development, and utility for restraining war in Western civilization. The book conducts a moral and historical inquiry into how this tradition has evolved from the Middle Ages to the present day to both justify and limit the resort to violence.
Key details regarding the book’s subject matter include:
- Structure of the Tradition: The author explores the tradition through two main components:
- Jus ad bellum: The moral principles and legal concepts relating to the right to go to war (e.g., just cause, right authority, right intention).
- Jus in bello: The rules of conduct and restraints within war itself, focusing on the principles of discrimination (noncombatant immunity) and proportionality.
- Historical Evolution: The book traces the metamorphosis of just war ideas from their specifically religious and canonical roots in the Middle Ages through their secularization via natural law in the early modern period (notably in the works of Victoria and Grotius).
- Interaction with Modern Warfare: It analyzes how traditional restraints have adapted to—or been challenged by—the onset of modern war, which is characterized by mass national armies and industrially advanced, highly destructive technology.
- Contemporary Relevance: The author examines the 20th-century recovery of the tradition by theologians and its application to modern ethical dilemmas, such as nuclear deterrence and ideological conflicts.
- Rival Conceptions: The subject is further defined by contrasting the just war/limited war tradition with alternative models of conflict, such as total war, holy war, and ideological war, which often seek to bypass traditional moral and legal limits.
The two main components of the just war tradition as discussed in the book are:
- Jus ad bellum: This component relates to the justification for going to war (the right to make war). It includes concepts such as just cause, right authority, right intention, last resort, the goal of achieving peace, and proportionality (ensuring the war does not do more harm than good).
- Jus in bello: This component refers to the restraint or limiting of war once it has begun (the law of war). It is historically expressed through two sets of restraints: those regarding the extent of harm done to noncombatants (the principle of discrimination or noncombatant immunity) and those regarding the weapons of war (the principle of proportionality).
This comprehensive summary covers every chapter and section of the book:
Part One: The Problem of Understanding Just War Tradition
- Chapter I: Approaches to the Restraint of War
- The Uncovering of Moral Principles: Theologians and philosophers often attempt to abstract the just war tradition into singular principles like “justice” or “charity,” but these are frequently historically and culturally conditioned.
- Cross-Cultural Analysis: Social scientists use comparative methods to find common patterns of restraint across different cultures to strengthen international law.
- Chapter II: The Significance of History for the Restraint of War: Two Perspectives
- Michael Walzer: Argues that moral values are known through historical reflection on “paradigmatic” events like World War II, which ratify fundamental concepts of just and unjust war.
- Paul Fussell: Explores how cultural memory of World War I created a “myth of war” as a senseless, impersonal, and uncontrollable force.
- Chapter III: The Cultural Regulation of Violence
- Internal Violence: Traces how the Middle Ages distinguished public war (bellum) from private duels (duellum), leading to the development of “right authority” and the chivalric code.
- The Case of Rebellion: Historically, just war limits were not applied to rebels (e.g., the German Peasants’ Rebellion); the American Civil War marked a turning point by treating rebels as legitimate belligerents.
- Violence Across Cultural Boundaries: Discusses the struggle to apply Western principles of restraint to non-Western cultures, contrasting “cultural domination” with “reciprocal interchange of values”.
- Chapter IV: Natural Law as a Language for the Ethics of War
- Humanitarianism vs. Military Necessity: Contemporary international law uses “humanitarianism” as a jus gentium (law of nations) concept to balance against the needs of war.
- Franciscus de Victoria: A transitional figure who used natural law to argue that religious differences do not justify war, extending restraints to the Indians of the New World.
- Paul Ramsey: Develops a “conversionist” Protestant ethic where divine charity transforms natural justice into specific principles of discrimination and proportionality.
Part Two: Rival Conceptions of War and Its Limits
- Chapter V: Perspectives on the Birth of a Tradition: The Middle Ages
- Early Canonical Attempts: Analyzes the “Truce of God” (limiting days of fighting), “Peace of God” (protecting certain people), and bans on weapons like the crossbow.
- Noncombatant Immunity: Examines how canonical lists of protected persons merged with the chivalric code of “noblesse oblige” to form a cultural consensus.
- Authority to Make War: Traces the debate over who (popes, emperors, or kings) could legitimately authorize war, distinguishing just wars from mere self-defense.
- Chapter VI: The Transition to the Modern Era
- Victoria and Grotius: These theorists completed the secularization of just war tradition via natural law, emphasizing jus in bello (conduct) over jus ad bellum (justification).
- Armies of Common Men: The shift from noble knights to mass armies required the replacement of chivalric morality with strict “military discipline”.
- Chapter VII: The Limited War Idea and Just War Tradition
- Defining Limited War: Characterized by limited resources, aims, means, geography, and targets—most notably practiced in the 18th-century “sovereigns’ wars”.
- Proportionality and Discrimination: In limited war, proportionality is primary; discrimination is not an absolute right of noncombatants but a relative calculation of military efficiency.
- Chapter VIII: Historical Concepts of Total War and Just War Tradition
- Holy War: Rejects the oversimplified equation of holy war with total war, noting that a “holy cause” can sometimes impose stricter limits on conduct.
- National War: Examines Napoleon’s “absolute war” and the theories of Jomini (guerrilla war as national war) and Clausewitz (war as policy by other means).
- Ideological War: Analyzes the “crusader” mentality in American thought and how propaganda in modern democracies can turn limited conflicts into total ones.
- Factors of Total War: Total war arises from absolute goals, high popular motivation, the technical capability to reach civilians, and an opponent of similar strength.
Part Three: Modern War and Attempts at Restraint
- Chapter IX: The Onset of Modern War and the Development of Restraints
- The American Civil War: This conflict was the first “modern war,” combining industrial technology with mass civilian armies and strategies of annihilation.
- Setting Bounds: Despite the carnage, this era produced General Orders No. 100 (the Lieber Code), the first field manual for the law of war, and the 1864 Geneva Convention for medical neutrality.
- Chapter X: The Just War Tradition and Contemporary War
- Catholic Rediscovery: Traces the evolution of papal teaching from early militarism critiques to a focus on self-defense and the condemnation of indiscriminate warfare.
- Paul Ramsey and Nuclear War: Applies the principles of discrimination and double effect to nuclear strategy, arguing that counterforce-plus-avoidance is the “upper limit” of moral action.
- Contemporary Means: Concludes that the just war tradition challenges modern society to develop more discriminating and proportionate means of defense, such as prioritizing conventional forces over nuclear ones.
Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War by James Turner Johnson is a comprehensive moral and historical inquiry into how Western civilization has attempted to regulate and limit violence. The book functions as a continuation of Johnson’s previous work, moving from the historical origins of the tradition in the Middle Ages to its application in contemporary dilemmas like nuclear deterrence.
Core Argument and Framework
Johnson argues that moral values regarding war are not abstract rationalities but are deeply rooted in historical communities and traditions. He structures the tradition around two essential pillars:
- Jus ad bellum: The justification for resorting to war, which includes concepts like just cause, right authority, and right intention.
- Jus in bello: Restraint within war itself, specifically focusing on the principles of discrimination (noncombatant immunity) and proportionality.
Thematic Analysis by Section
Part One: The Problem of Understanding Just War Tradition
This section addresses the methodology of moral inquiry.
- The Power of History: Johnson examines how historical reflection informs moral values, using Michael Walzer’s work on “paradigmatic” events like World War II and Paul Fussell’s analysis of the “myth” of World War I.
- Bridge Languages: Natural law is presented as a “bridge language” that allows diverse cultural and historical elements to be unified and communicated across societal boundaries.
Part Two: Rival Conceptions of War and Its Limits
Johnson traces the metamorphosis of the tradition through different eras.
- The Medieval Synthesis: The tradition coalesced in the Middle Ages through the intermingling of canon law, chivalry, and theology. Johnson highlights that noncombatant immunity emerged not just from religious mandate but also from knightly self-interest and “noblesse oblige”.
- The Secular Transition: Figures like Victoria and Grotius transformed these concepts from religious “divine law” into secular “natural law,” enabling their application beyond Christendom to the entire world.
- Limited vs. Total War: The book contrasts the 18th-century “sovereigns’ wars,” which were inherently limited by resources and aims, with the later emergence of “total war” models. Johnson argues that total war arises when goals become absolute, populations are mobilized, and traditional restraints are discarded.
Part Three: Modern War and Attempts at Restraint
This final section focuses on the challenges posed by industrialized and nuclear conflict.
- The American Civil War as Paradigm: The Civil War is identified as the first “modern war,” where industrial technology met mass civilian armies, necessitating the first formal military manual for the laws of war, the Lieber Code.
- Contemporary Recovery: Johnson details the 20th-century recovery of just war thought by theologians like Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Ramsey.
- Nuclear Strategy: The book concludes by applying just war principles to nuclear war, arguing that the tradition challenges modern states to develop more discriminating and proportionate means of defense, rather than relying on indiscriminate counter-population deterrence.
Conclusion
Johnson’s analysis demonstrates that the just war tradition is a “living organism” that evolves to meet new realities of conflict. He suggests that the contemporary task is to synthesize moral concerns for noncombatant immunity with political realities of proportionality to create workable limits on modern violence.