Just war and the question of authority

Abstract

This article assesses the recently renewed interest in the just war criterion of sovereign authority from a Thomistic perspective. It contrasts the classical conceptualisation of authority as found in the work of St Thomas Aquinas with the argument made by today's revisionist just war thinkers. The article points out that the two approaches start from fundamentally different units of moral analysis. While the Thomistic just war emphasises the common good of the political community revisionists advocate the perspective of moral individualism. As a result, for Thomism, only those entrusted with the responsibility for the common good of the political community are entitled to wage war while, in contrast, revisionists argue that any individual has the right to wage war. The latter side's position, the article criticises, is problematic from a moral point of view as it runs counter to the just war tradition's concern about restraint in the employment of force.

To Face the World Alone or Together: Jus ad Bellum and the Lives of Child Soldiers in Neon Genesis Evangelion

“…115 Evangelion references the revisionist theory of authorisation that argues that the individual has a moral responsibility in war. 116 The violence of the war created a need for hope and protection, a responsibility that was passed on to an individual. 117 Shinji received this power not through a designated process but as the only person left in NERV's hierarchy that had the ability to respond to the violence on Earth.…”

“…humanity could arguably be considered 'the protection of the innocent'. 136 Shinji symbolised hope, which aims to protect not the security interests of the states, but the lives of humans affected by the war, highlighting humanitarian intervention as justification for retaliation. However, episodes 1, 13, 17 and 24 suggest a problem with the just cause principles because the just cause can collapse in on each other.…”