Abstract
This chapter presents a comparative analysis of the perspectives of Vitoria and Erasmus on the theme of the justice of war. It is argued that this analysis reveals an important contrast between the more utopian position of Erasmus and the more realist (albeit firmly grounded in a Thomist natural law framework) perspective of Francisco de Vitoria. The chapter begins with an introductory section that provides an overview of the just war theory tradition that is pivotal for understanding the context of the discussion. The second section summarizes Erasmus’s views on the justice of war with an emphasis on the utopian elements in his approach. The third section provides an overview of Vitoria’s thought on the same issue outlining the influence of both the Thomist natural law theoretical framework and of the context of European expansion into the New World. The fourth section contextualizes the perspectives of Vitoria and Erasmus on the issue of the justice of war as well as on the conditions and prospects for peace in the broader setting of Christian humanism. The final section provides a summary of the main findings of the comparative analysis of the approaches of Vitoria and Erasmus on the justice of war and argues for their continued present-day relevance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As to the impact of the discovery of the American continent on the “Erasmist movement”, José Luis Abellán points to the “American utopianism” (Abellán 1986, p. 390). The Erasmist line of thought on war (albeit not exclusively on that subject) was thus influenced by the Discoveries (quite notably in the person of Saint Thomas More): “(…) the fact that Thomas More places Utopia in America is not an accident; it follows a deep conviction (…) that America is a utopic land, or, even better, that it is the Utopia par excellence” (Abellán 1986, p. 391).
- 2.
For a consideration of a nuanced, non-monolithic approach to the relationship between humanism and scholasticism, see Danwerth (2020), p. 45.
- 3.
For a brief presentation of just war theory in the Christian tradition of Spanish scholasticism, see Alves and Chelo (2016), pp. 1203–1204.
- 4.
See, for instance, Brown et al. (2002), p. 221, where the author argues that Erasmus’s Dulce bellum inexpertis “(…) may be read as a defence of pacifism against the Thomistic doctrine of just war”.
- 5.
Erasmus of Rotterdam (1974b), p. 392.
- 6.
Thomas Duve notes that the interwar period in the twentieth Century witnessed a revival of interest in both these thinkers and points specifically to the focus on the contributions to international law as a means of establishing peace among nations by Spanish humanists. See Duve (2021), pp. 9–10.
- 7.
Note that neither “idealist” nor “realist” are here used in the strict sense of the theoretical approaches to international relations divided among idealism and realism. The limits of the use of this terminology in the context of this paper are discussed later in this section.
- 8.
An English translation under the title The Rights of War and Peace was published by Liberty Fund and edited by Richard Tuck. Relevant excerpts can be found in Brown et al. (2002), pp. 325–334.
- 9.
For the Latin text and a Portuguese translation, see Calafate (2015), pp. 212–215.
- 10.
For a more profound analysis of the meaning of Realism as a theory of International Relations, see Baylis et al. (2011), pp. 86–99. In this line of thought, the ascription of realism to Vitoria’s thoughts on war would imply a filiation of Vitoria in a framework that is at odds with his analysis of war as a moral issue to be addressed in terms of justice, not utility or expediency. In fact, if one has in mind what David Fisher means by “realism” (see Fisher 2011, pp. 11–27), a view that wants to keep ethics out of war theorization, the qualification of Vitoria as a realist would be problematic to say the least. In fact, the author presents the realist approach to war as a ground for moral scepticism and a challenge to just war thinking (see Fisher 2011, p. 2). Furthermore, for a study of the just war theory as opposed to political realism, see Reichberg (2008), pp. 11–29. Just war theory may be interpreted as a middle path, a moderate position between the extremes of pacifism and pure realism.
- 11.
For an attempt at associating Erasmus with liberal pacifism, see, for instance, Howard (2008), pp. 6–7.
- 12.
See Alves and Moreira (2013), pp. 118–119.
- 13.
Vitoria speaks of a punishment “iuxta mensuram delicti” (that is, proportionate to the measure of the offence): Vitoria De Iure Belli, III, 5.
- 14.
For an account of the explicit rejection by Erasmus of the three traditional just war principles, see Dealy (1984), pp. 55–58.
- 15.
“(…) quod aliquod bellum sit iustum, tria requiruntur”. Aquinas (1962), Summa Theologiae (ST) IIa IIae, q. 40, a.1.
- 16.
“(…) auctoritas principis, cuius mandato bellum est gerendum. Non enim pertinet ad personam privatam bellum movere”. Aquinas, ST IIa, IIae, q. 40, a. 1.
- 17.
“(…) illi qui impugnantur propter aliquam culpam impugnationem mereantur”. Aquinas, ST IIa, IIae, q. 40, a. 1.
- 18.
“(…) ut sit intentio bellantium recta: qua scilicet intenditur vel ut bonum promoveatur, vel ut malum vitetur”. Aquinas, ST IIa, IIae, q. 40, a. 1.
- 19.
As Ernest Fortin explains, “one has to admit that the problem of warfare has always been fraught with greater urgency for the Christian theologian than it was for any of the philosophers of classical antiquity. Given the force of the biblical teaching concerning the sacredness of life, it is understandable that from the beginning some Christians should have been reluctant to engage in bloodshed or condone the use of arms”. Fortin (1996), p. 286.
- 20.
In fact, Vitoria’s theory of warcraft is not expressed in nationalist terms (one must recall that the sovereign nation-state was then a novelty). It is rather grounded in a natural-law conscience from which the ius gentium stems. That same notion is present in Bernice Hamilton’s reading of scholastic internationalist thinking: “(…) [the prince’s right to intervene] ‘is part of the law of nations, and has the authority of all mankind’ (…). This moral responsibility sometimes appears a noble ideal, and sometimes dangerous and impractical nonsense, as Vitoria suspects in his commentary On War (art. 1)” (Hamilton 1963, p. 106).
- 21.
Fernández-Santamaría (1977), p. 115. Ross Dealy goes so far as to dismiss Fernández-Santamaría’s association of Erasmus with Vitoria and the scholastic thought in general as simply wrong, arguing that “war occupies an entirely different place in Erasmus’ thought than it does in scholastic thought” (Dealy 1984, p. 53).
- 22.
“Bellum e bellum seritur, e minimo maximum, ex unico geminum”. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1974a), p. 460.
- 23.
O’Donovan and O’Donovan (1999), p. 571.
- 24.
O’Donovan and O’Donovan (1999), p. 571.
- 25.
O’Donovan and O’Donovan (1999), p. 571.
- 26.
“(…) non alia res vel magis impia vel calamitosior vel latius perniciosa (…) et in toto homine indignior, ut ne dicam Christiano”. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1999), p. 12.
- 27.
“Bonus princeps nunquam omnino bellum suscipiet, nisi cum tentatis omnibus nulla rationi vitari potuit”. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1974a), pp. 463–464.
- 28.
In fact, this is a possible position under just war theory. If war is only used as last resort, many wars that have actually been waged are not just and could have been avoided if political will had existed. This is, for instance, the view of some contemporary libertarians (and non-interventionists) such as Murray Rothbard. See Rothbard (1999).
- 29.
See, for instance, Howard (2008), pp. 8–9.
- 30.
See Vitoria, De Iure Belli III, 2: “Non est iusta causa belli amplificatio imperio” (“The expansion of empire is not a just cause for war”).
- 31.
Howard (2008), p. 7.
- 32.
It is also a step considered by the Spanish scholastics. See Cruz Cruz (2011). See also Vitoria, De Iure Belli, IV, I, 6: “Oportet ad iustum bellum magna diligentia examinare causas belli et audire rationes adversariorum (…)” (“For a war to be just it is necessary to examine its causes with great zeal and listen to the reasons of the adversaries (…)”). And Vitoria goes on to argue for the need to consult the independent (“[viros qui] cum libertate (…) loquantur”) advice of the good and the wise.
- 33.
“Omnia bonus princeps publicis metitur commoditatibus, alioqui ne princeps quidem fuerit. Non idem est ius in homines et in pecudes. Bona pars imperii consensus est populi, ea res primo reges peperit. Quod si quod dissidium ortum fuerit inter principes, cur non potius ad arbitros itur?”. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1974a), pp. 539–542.
- 34.
Regarding the rise of International Law and its association with the modern sovereign state, it is worth considering that Andreas Wagner rightly presents Vitoria’s contribution to the establishment of transnational laws (with the community as a global lawmaker) as a limit on the internal state sovereignty: see Wagner (2020), pp. 72–83. The German legal scholar Heinrich Rommen presents a similar suggestion in his work on Francisco Suárez: see Rommen (1951), p. 456.
- 35.
“(…) ubi petitur vindicta pro iniuria accepta” (Vitoria, De Iure Belli I, 2). In this context, Bernice Hamilton speaks of a legitimate offensive war in addition to a merely defensive one under scholastic just war theory and distinguishes it from “war of aggression” (see Hamilton 1963, p. 143). Rommen uses the distinction between a necessarily defensive war and a simply defensive war (the first one is a necessity and even a duty, for it supposes an imminent attack on the very survival of the State, falling under the right of self-defence; the latter seeks to re-established a violated right). On this, see Rommen (1951), pp. 487–488, although his focus is mainly on Francisco Suárez’ thought. In these pages, the German author explains that what scholasticism has in mind is not merely necessary (qua defensive) war, arising from a natural right to self-defence, but it may also stem from the very authority (public jurisdiction) of the governing body and, in that sense, Rommen argues, from necessary evil or unintended consequence of international relations, war becomes a guarantee of the law.
- 36.
See Vitoria, De Iure belli I, 2.
- 37.
See Waltz (2003).
- 38.
See Vitoria, De Indis I, 1. For an English translation of Vitoria’s De Indis, see Pagden and Lawrance (1991), pp. 230–292.
- 39.
See Vitoria, De Indis I, 2.
- 40.
See Vitoria, De Indis I, 3.
- 41.
“Utrum si propter sacrilegam consuetudinem comedendi carnes humanas, vel utendi hostia humana in sacrificiis (…), possint principes christiani sua auctoritate et ratione bellum illis inferred et quatenus liceat (...)”. Vitoria, De Indis II, 1.
- 42.
“Principes christiani, quantum ad huiusmodi infideles non possunt plus auctoritate Papae quam sine illa”. Vitoria, De Indis II, 6.
- 43.
“(…) nullo modo sunt subditi Papae”. Vitoria, De Indis II, 6.
- 44.
See Vitoria, De Indis II, 8.
- 45.
Regarding the duty to defend the innocent, Pedro Calafate stresses that in light of the world authority of the ius gentium, human sacrifice is to be punished through war if need be, whose justice is based upon a universal conscience of legality and morality (see Calafate 2015, p. 31). From this notion of world community, Calafate also extracts a suggestion of a supranational protection of individuals, for justice is not the result of state legislation, but is prior to it and common to all. In the same line, Heinz-Gerhard Justenhoven also considers the modernity of Vitoria’s thought in that he incorporated a notion of the world as a political community (see Justenhoven 2011, p. 98).
- 46.
“(…) cessante hac causa, non licitum est ultra progredi, nec hac occasione aut bona eorum aut terras occupare”. Vitoria, De Indis II, 9. Here one must consider the realism present in Vitoria’s principle of proportionality in war described by Andreas Wagner in a chapter dedicated to Vitoria. In a section entitled “A Realist, Secular, Cosmopolitan law”, the author argues that Vitoria was “(…) quite sensitive to the factual contexts of legal-theoretical doctrine”. In fact, a just motive in itself is not sufficient to justify the act of waging war because contingent circumstances, such as the prospect for several casualties and uncertainty of outcome, for instance, may force an injured party to refrain from war. Such a war might theoretically be acceptable, but a realist consideration could advise us against it. See Wagner (2018), p. 93.
- 47.
See Vitoria, De Iure Belli II, III and IV. These conditions are a variation of the three classic requirements for a just war found in Thomas Aquinas’s theory of war: just cause, legitimate authority and right intention. On this, see Wright (1934), p. 125.
- 48.
Vitoria asks: “Apud quem sit iusta auctoritas indicendi vel gerendi bellum?” (“In whom does legitimate authority to declare or wage war reside?”). Vitoria, De Iure Belli II.
- 49.
“Quae possit esse ratio et causa belli” (“What may constitute a motive and cause for war”). Vitoria, De Iure Belli III.
- 50.
“Quid et quantum liceat in bello iusto” (“What and to what extent is permissible in a just war”). Vitoria, De Iure Belli IV, 1. Regarding this expansion from Aquinas’s recta intentio, it should be mentioned that Wagner notes that Vitoria actually shifts the focus from intention of those waging war to the injury committed. See Wagner (2018), p. 93.
- 51.
Oz (2012), p. 3.
- 52.
Oz (2012), pp. 4–5.
- 53.
See Weigel (1990).
- 54.
See Erasmus of Rotterdam (1999), pp. 760–761: “(…) multo potiorem esse pacem iniquam quam bellum aequum (…)” (“an unjust peace is by far preferable to a just war”).
- 55.
Carr (1981), p. 8.
- 56.
Carr (1981), p. 9.
- 57.
Biggar (2013), p. 16.
- 58.
See Biggar (2013), p. 7. There, the author considers the equality of both positions regarding justice. To omit an action to stop a grave evil is as morally condemnable or approvable as to commit an act of war to stop it. And although he is theoretically right, practice has shown that commission needs further justification.
- 59.
These steps include direct negotiation between parties, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration (in which a third party’s deliberations are accepted as binding), and judicial solution (to be decided by competent courts).
- 60.
Reagan (1981).
- 61.
See Barron (2016).
- 62.
Note that US Bishops distance themselves from such passivity in the beginning of “The Challenge of Peace”. Whether or not they truly achieve that positive approach to peace is debateable.
Abbreviations
- ST:
-
Summa Theologiae
References
Abellán JL (1986) Historia Crítica del Pensamiento Español, vol 2. Espasa-Calpe, Madrid
Alves AA, Chelo H (2016) Discurso Contemporâneo sobre a Paz e a Guerra à Luz da Teoria da Guerra Justa: uma Leitura dos Desenvolvimentos do Magistério Católico. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 72(4):1191–1210
Alves AA, Moreira JM (2013) The Salamanca School. Bloomsbury, New York
Aquinas T (1962) Summa Theologiae: Pars IIa IIae. Marietti, Italy
Barron R (2016) Daniel Berrigan and Non-Violence. Word on Fire. https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/daniel-berrigan-and-non-violence/5155/. Accessed 27 Dec 2018
Baylis J, Smith S, Owens P (2011) The globalization of world politics, an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Biggar N (2013) In defence of war. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Brown C, Nardin T, Rengger N (eds) (2002) International relations in political thought, texts from the ancient Greeks to the first world war. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Calafate P (2015) A Escola Ibérica da Paz, vol 1. Almedina, Coimbra
Carr EH (1981) The twenty years’ crisis. The Macmillan Press Ltd, Hong Kong
Cruz Cruz J (2011) La Necesidad del Juez Árbitro en caso de Guerra: Principios de la Escuela Española del Siglo de Oro. In: Cruz Cruz J (ed) La Justicia y los Juicios en el Pensamiento del Siglo de Oro. EUNSA, Pamplona, pp 13–31
Danwerth O (2020) Erasmus, christlicher Humanismus und Spiritualität in Spanien und Neu Spanien (16. Jahrhundert). School of Salamanca Working Paper Series 2020–01
Dealy R (1984) The dynamics of Erasmus’ thought on war. Erasmus Stud 4(1):53–67. https://doi.org/10.1163/187492784X00055
Duve T (2021) The School of Salamanca. In: Duve T, Egío JL, Birr C (eds) The School of Salamanca: a case of global knowledge production. Brill, Leiden, pp 1–42
Erasmus of Rotterdam D (1974a) Institutio Principis Christiani (First published in 1516). In: Erasmi Opera Omnia, vol. IV-1. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 95–220
Erasmus of Rotterdam D (1974b) Panegyricus ad Philipum (First published in 1514). In: Erasmi Opera Omnia, vol. IV-1. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 1–94
Erasmus of Rotterdam D (1999) Dulce Bellum Inexpertis. In: Erasmi Opera Omnia, vol II-7. Elsevier, The Hague, pp 11–44
Fernández-Santamaría JA (1977) The state, war and peace: Spanish political thought in the renaissance 1516-1559. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fisher D (2011) Morality and war: can a war be just in the twenty-first century? Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fortin EL (1996) Human rights, virtue and the common good: untimely meditations on religion and politics. In: Benestad JB (ed) Ernest L. Fortin: Collected essays, vol. 3. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham
Hamilton B (1963) Political thought in sixteenth-century Spain: a study of the political ideas of Vitoria, Soto, Suárez, and Molina. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Howard M (2008) War and the liberal conscience. Columbia University Press, New York
Justenhoven HG (2011) Las Raíces Teológicas de la Ley Internacional según Francisco de Vitoria. In: Cruz Cruz J (ed) Razón Práctica y Derecho: Cuestiones Filosófico-Jurídicas en el Siglo de Oro Español. EUNSA, Pamplona, pp 87–98
O’Donovan O, O’Donovan JL (eds) (1999) From Irenaeus to Grotius, a sourcebook in Christian political thought. Eerdmans Publishing, Michigan
Oz A (2012) How to cure a fanatic. Vintage Books, London
Pagden A, Lawrance J (eds) (1991) Vitoria: political writings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Reagan R (1981) Inaugural Address January 20, 1981. The Public Papers of President Ronald W. Reagan. Transcript Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/inaugural-address-january-20-1981. Accessed 24 Sept 2018
Reichberg GM (2008) Jus ad Bellum. In: May L (ed) War: essays in political philosophy. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 11–29
Rommen HA (1951) La Teoría del Estado y de la Comunidad Internacional en Francisco Suárez (trans. García Yebra V). Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, Buenos Aires, Instituto Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid
Rothbard MN (1999) America’s two just wars: 1755 and 1861. In: Denson JV (ed) The costs of war. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 119–134
Vitoria F (1967) Relectio De Indis o Libertad de los Indios. In: Pereña L, Prendes JM (eds) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid
Vitoria F (1981) Relectio de Iure Belli o Paz Dinámica. In: Pereña L (ed) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid
Wagner A (2018) Francisco de Vitoria. In: Domingo R, Martínez-Torrón J (eds) Great Christian Jurists in Spanish history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 84–96
Wagner A (2020) Francisco de Vitoria and the global commonwealth. In: Domingo R, Witte J Jr (eds) Christianity and global law. London, Routledge, pp 72–83
Waltz KN (2003) More may be better. In: Sagan S, Waltz KN (eds) The spread of nuclear weapons, a debate renewed, with new sections on India and Pakistan, Terrorism and Missile Defence. W. W. Norton & Co, New York, pp 3–45
Weigel G (1990) The next line of hills: the challenge of peace revisited. First Things. https://www.firstthings.com/article/1990/04/the-next-line-of-hills-the-challenge-of-peace-revisited. Accessed 27 Dec 2018
Wright H (1934) Catholic founders of modern international law. Rec Am Cathol Hist Soc Philadelphia 45(2):119–143. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44209167. Accessed 27 Dec 2018
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barroso, L.D., Alves, A.A. (2022). Vitoria and Erasmus on the Justice of War. In: Beneyto, J.M. (eds) Empire, Humanism and Rights. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82487-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82487-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82486-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82487-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)