| Abstract: | From Cicero to St. Thomas, from Erasmus of Rotterdam to Grotius and Pufendorf, the concept of ‘just war’ is used to state the conditions under which the rhetoric of belligerence can meet the standards of both rationality and morality to justify going to war. The classical humanism and the philosophy of law will try in the Renaissance, especially with the beginning of a retreat of the divine in public affairs, to formalize and even humanize the war. Not only does the ideal of justice require honorable motives (jus ad bellum) for the use of weapons to be acceptable, but also how to behave in hostilities should also observe a certain restraint inspired by morality (jus in bello). Even Erasmus, the pacifist par excellence, admits that one must defend oneself against the Turks. On the other hand, the concept of ‘holy war’, used in the three major monotheistic religions, offers a different sound when going to war. Then the reference becomes abstract and absolute, so no argument can occur, no debate can be tolerated, because we face the divine plan. People of Yahweh, the disciples of Allah or the Children of the victorious Jesus Christ, all are refusing the opportunity to discuss the foundations of the war, hence an intangible reality which is conducive to a total violence. However, these two types of war are not reducible to one another, because one is based on a reasonable discussion, the other on the basis of Revelation on which nothing can be said. However, the boundaries between them become blurred when the stronger pretends to be the defender of a just cause and wants to impose its law over all opposing voices. In this case, the discourses of legitimacy become unbearable and confusing. |
