Catholic just war theory’s colonial legacy shapes modern conflict narratives, obscuring structural violence and imperial power dynamics

Indigenous conflict resolution frameworks, such as the Māori concept of *whanaungatanga* (relationship-building) or the Navajo *Hózhǫ́* (harmony), prioritize restorative justice over punitive measures, directly challenging the adversarial assumptions of just war theory. These traditions emphasize relational accountability and communal well-being, which are systematically erased in Western conflict narratives. The omission of these perspectives reinforces the colonial myth that Western ethical systems are universally superior. Indigenous scholars argue that just war theory’s focus on state sovereignty and jus ad bellum ignores the communal and ecological dimensions of conflict.

Just war theory emerged in the 4th century with Augustine of Hippo, but its modern form was codified by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century to justify medieval European wars of conquest, including the Crusades. The theory was later weaponized during colonial expansions, such as the Spanish conquest of the Americas, where Pope Alexander VI’s 1493 papal bull *Inter caetera* used just war rhetoric to legitimize territorial seizure. The selective application of just war criteria—e.g., critiquing Iran’s nuclear program while ignoring Israel’s occupation of Palestine—reveals a pattern of moral double standards rooted in imperial power structures. Historical parallels can be drawn to the Protestant Reformation’s justifications for religious wars, which similarly obscured material interests under the guise of divine mandate.

In Buddhist traditions, the concept of *ahimsa* (non-violence) and the Middle Way offer alternatives to just war theory, emphasizing conflict resolution through compassion and wisdom rather than military force. Hindu philosophy, particularly the *Bhagavad Gita*, frames duty (*dharma*) in war as a last resort, but also critiques the moral burden of violence, challenging the binary of justified vs. unjustified conflict. Chinese Confucian thought, with its emphasis on harmony and relational ethics, provides a framework where conflict is seen as a failure of relational governance rather than an ethical dilemma to be managed. These traditions highlight how just war theory’s focus on individual moral actors obscures systemic and structural causes of violence.

Psychological research on moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999) shows how ethical frameworks like just war theory can be co-opted to justify harm by redefining violence as necessary or virtuous, a phenomenon observed in both military and corporate contexts. Neuroscientific studies reveal that humans are neurologically predisposed to tribalism and in-group favoritism, which just war rhetoric exploits to frame out-groups as existential threats. Anthropological evidence demonstrates that societies with restorative justice systems, such as the Māori or the Inuit, experience lower rates of cyclical violence compared to adversarial legal systems. The scientific literature on conflict resolution consistently shows that punitive frameworks exacerbate cycles of retaliation, while collaborative approaches yield sustainable peace.

Artistic traditions across cultures have long critiqued the sanitization of war under moral or religious banners, from Picasso’s *Guernica* to Persian miniature paintings depicting the horrors of battle. Spiritual practices such as the Quaker tradition of silent worship or the Sufi concept of *fana* (ego dissolution) challenge the individualism and dualism inherent in just war theory. Indigenous storytelling, such as the Lakota *Wanagi Wicakte* (soul’s journey), frames conflict as a disruption of cosmic balance, offering a spiritual counter-narrative to the legalistic justifications of war. These artistic and spiritual perspectives reveal how just war theory’s focus on rational criteria obscures the embodied and emotional realities of violence.

Scenario modeling suggests that the continued reliance on just war theory in global governance will perpetuate cycles of militarized conflict, particularly as climate change and resource scarcity intensify competition for arable land and water. Alternative futures, such as those proposed by the Earth Charter or the Global South’s calls for a *culture of peace*, emphasize preventive diplomacy and ecological stewardship over military intervention. The rise of AI-driven conflict prediction tools could either reinforce just war’s adversarial logic or enable restorative justice frameworks that prioritize de-escalation. Historical precedents, such as the post-WWII Nuremberg Trials, show that legal frameworks can evolve toward accountability, but only when marginalized voices are centered in the process.

Marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, have long critiqued just war theory as a tool of Western domination, with figures like Frantz Fanon and Edward Said exposing its role in legitimizing colonial violence. Indigenous leaders, such as the Zapatistas in Mexico or the Māori sovereignty movement, reject state-centered conflict frameworks in favor of communal autonomy and self-determination. Women’s peace movements, from Liberia’s Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace to the Nobel-winning work of Leymah Gbowee, demonstrate how just war rhetoric silences the gendered impacts of conflict and the leadership of women in peacebuilding. The omission of these voices in mainstream discourse reflects a broader pattern of epistemic violence, where non-Western and non-male perspectives are excluded from shaping global ethical frameworks.