This more holistic idea of peace is often called \u2018positive peace\u2019, \u2018just peace\u2019 or \u2018sustainable peace\u2019 by\u00a0 scholars and practitioners. Though it is often without the religious or Christian perspective this secular view largely converges with the Church belief that peace needs many elements to truly be called peace. The United Nations, for example, the Sustainable Development Goals<\/a> very<\/span><\/span> tidily sum up its view of peace as something that derives from a number of conditions being met. Other scholars, like those who work at the Institute for Economics and Peace and produce the Global Peace Index, understand peace to be the outcome of various \u2018pillars or factors of peace\u2019<\/a><\/span>, like well-functioning governments and equitable distribution of resources, which work together to produce a system of peace.<\/p>\n The Church is emphatically for peace in all places and for all people, and has time and again advocated vocally for the prevention or cessation of war and supports the long tradition of pacifism in the Church. Yet, under certain circumstances, it also believes that war is morally permissible perhaps even necessary. Built on centuries of tradition and scholarship the Church uses the<\/span> \u2018Just War Theory<\/span>\u2019<\/a><\/span> as the basis upon which it discerns the permissibility of a war and the morality of its conduct. The Church\u00a0 believes that a State has a right to defend itself, and its peoples, from an act of aggression, though the manner in which it does so will still need to be bound bound certain principles.<\/p>\n In the West we can trace the Just War Theory back at least as far as the 4th<\/sup> Century and the work of St Augustine of Hippo. Since then it has undergone, and continues to undergo, rethinking and refining. Nonetheless, it is traditionally divided into two strands that cover the conditions by which one discerns if it is morally permissible or necessary to wage war (called jus ad bellum<\/em>), and second, the type of conditions with which that war can be fought (called jus in bello<\/em>). More recently, scholars have added a third strand concerning the resolution of conflict and the moral and practical responsibilities various parties have during the transition from war to peace (called jus post bellum<\/em>). There are many significant Church documents that set out this position and provide nuance, history, detail as well as practical application of the Theory and these are listed in the \u2018Further Reading\u2019 section below, but what follows is a brief overview of the main tenets of Just War Theory.<\/p>\n This element is concerned with the conditions that need to be met in order for the decision to go to war to be a\u00a0 morally sound one, that is, these criteria are used to determine under what conditions it is morally permissible to break the commandment \u2018thou shalt not kill\u2019. Those who have responsibility for the common good must evaluate their decisions based on these criteria, after which they have the right to impose on citizens obligations that are needed for the defence of the nation. Still, the State is to make fair provision for people, who for reason of conscience, refuse to bear arms. Other ways for them to serve the community must be found.<\/p>\n The conditions to wage a war:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n This part of the Theory outlines the morally acceptable ways in which war can waged. It relies on the belief that just because war has broken out it does not mean all moral principles and the utmost respect for life can be disregarded. It is universally agreed that civilians should not be intentionally <\/em>targeted and all efforts to protect the life of non-combatants must be made. Generally speaking, the loss of civilian life that occurs as \u2018collateral damage\u2019 is usually considered morally allowed in the sense that it is a tragedy but a person ought not to be punished for it. Identifying civilians and combatants as well as measuring the intentionality of \u2018collateral damage\u2019 has become more complex since the end of the Second World War as warfare, particularly the rise or terrorism and advanced weaponry like drones have become the norm.<\/p>\n Beyond protecting civilian life the means by which a war can be waged are also circumscribed by one important principle:<\/p>\n This is a relatively new area of scholarship and one not traditionally included in the Church\u2019s Just War doctrine, but it is receiving greater scholarly and theological attention given the number of conflicts which include a third party getting involved in either the conflict or post-war reconstruction. Theologians and scholars working in this area seek to return to Christian traditions of restoring peace after conflict and to, in effect, bring Just War Theory full circle by having us return to issues of active peacemaking and working for a just peace. Discerning the morality, rights and responsibilities in post-war decisions is particularly important because knowing how much and in what ways others can, or should, intervene in another community or nation\u2019s political and economic life during this usually very complex and charged period are incredibly difficult issues fraught with not just moral tensions but with the very real possibility that if done badly conflict will resume. Some of the issues might include discerning who decides and then builds (or rebuilds) a certain type of political system, should it replicate what was there pre-conflict or be something different? What will restorative justice look like? Should there be punishment, of whom, by whom? Are there power imbalances between countries that make local decision making impossible or marginalised? These kinds of issue have, for example, been key to certain periods of operations in Afghanistan and in countless humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, such as in East Timor.<\/p>\n Beyond those working on a jus post bellum <\/em>element to be included in the Just War Theory there are some who argue that it is time for it to be scrapped as official Church teaching\u00a0 and a doctrine of just peacemaking through non-violence be instituted. These scholars argue that though Just War Theory places a high value on peace and sees war only as a last resort, in the face of the ever increasing power of modern weapons, and also examples of the effectiveness of non-violence in response to unjust aggression, they argue that non-violence is the better, more ethical option. They argue the Just War Theory weakens the Christian moral imperative to develop methods for nonviolent conflict because it always leaves us recourse to violence, however restricted that recourse may be. Further, they suggest that non-violence is central to Jesus\u2019 message and the way he lived his life and so must be a central virtue in the way we live out the Gospel.<\/p>\n Two<\/span> major conferences<\/span><\/span> on this issue were co-hosted in Rome by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace<\/a><\/span> and Pax Christi<\/span> <\/a>in April 2016 and 2019. The former is the Vatican body that promotes and leads the Church on issues to do with the Church\u2019s social teaching (as of January 2017 it is part of an expanded department called the Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development); Pax Christi is an international Catholic coalition with branches and networks in many countries which promotes and advocates for the \u2018Peace of Christ\u2019.<\/p>\n In between these two conferences, Pope Francis already made clear his commitment to peace and non-violence in his 2017 World Day of Peace Message entitled “Nonviolence: A Style of Politics for Peace<\/span>“. He said, \u2018when victims of violence are able to resist the temptation to retaliate, they become the most credible promoters of nonviolent peacemaking. In the most local and ordinary situations and in the international order, may nonviolence become the hallmark of our decisions, our relationships and our actions, and indeed of political life in all its forms\u2019.<\/p>\n![\"OPtB\"](\"https:\/\/justiceandpeace.org.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/OPtB.png\")
Just War Tradition<\/h2>\n
Pre-War Considerations (or jus ad bellum<\/em>)<\/h3>\n
\n
Waging War \u2013 (or jus in bello<\/em>)<\/h3>\n
\n
Resolving Conflict (or jus post bellum)<\/em><\/h3>\n
A New Theory Altogether?<\/h3>\n