[PDI Working Paper No.12] War and Peace from the Viewpoint of Justice: Rawls’ Just War and the Duty of Civility

Ji Hoon Lin (Researcher, Peace&Democracy Institute, Korea University)

Abstract:

The act of war is subject to political judgment in that a particular political group mobilizes a highly organized human group to achieve its purpose. From the perspective of emphasizing political autonomy, war belongs to the realm of political prudence, not morality. For them, the argument for a just war would be at best a mask for pursuing national interests or a spark of military adventurism that would harm themselves. However, war cannot be completely removed from the realm of morality in that it is essentially an act of killing. The theory of ceasefire can be said to be a theoretical attempt to fill this wide gap between morality and politics. As Clausewitz said, “War is an extension of politics.” Thus, paradoxically, war is placed under the constraints of moral judgment. War is the object of right and wrong when political decisions related to war are controlled by the sense of justice of the majority of the community. In that sense, Rawls argues that foreign policy, including war, should satisfy the conditions of liberal legitimacy, like other domestic social policies. For free people, the principles of war become part of a constitutional democracy. Rawls emphasizes this through the duty of civility. The important thing is that the principles of war must be fully presented and known before the war. Otherwise, these principles will simply be an extra consideration that is weighed against other things. We have seen countless scenes in history where military considerations overwhelm moral judgments. This is why theoretical and practical interest in just war is required.