State of war - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
State of war, a term often uttered with a casual familiarity, belies a complex and deeply unsettling concept: a legally recognized condition of armed conflict between two or more sovereign states, inviting us to question its true nature and the assumptions we harbor about its inevitability. Is it merely a political declaration, or does it signify something far more profound about the human condition?
The seeds of this notion can be traced back to antiquity, finding resonance in the writings of Sun Tzu (c. 5th century BC) and his strategic analyses in The Art of War, as well as in the philosophical considerations of Thucydides (c. 460–400 BC) chronicling the Peloponnesian War. These early references, however, often lacked a formalized legal framework. The Roman concept of bellum iustum, or just war, began to codify conditions under which conflict was deemed legitimate, a germinal idea for subsequent legal theories through figures like Cicero and Augustine. These notions echo some applications in modern day legal theory of the social contract theory. The historical landscape surrounding these evolving definitions is fertile ground for debate – from the shifting alliances of Ancient Greece, where moral philosophy was paramount, to the expansionist ambitions of the Roman Empire, where practical necessity often trumped ethical considerations; each era offering divergent perspectives on the justification and parameters of state of war.
The formalization of the state of war evolved drastically with the rise of nation-states and international law. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), considered the father of international law, significantly shaped modern understanding with his De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), published in 1625. Subsequent developments were influenced by the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and the writings of Emmerich de Vattel (1714-1767), whose The Law of Nations (1758) solidified the concept of state sovereignty and its implications for declaring war. However, the 20th and 21st centuries witnessed a further transformation, exemplified by the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), which sought to outlaw war, and the United Nations Charter (1945), which restricts the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Such attempts seem to appeal to some natural law ethics. These developments invite critical questioning: do such declarations genuinely curtail conflict, or merely re-categorize it under different auspices?
The legacy of "state of war" continues to permeate our world, influencing international relations, shaping legal frameworks, and even coloring our collective imagination through literature, film, and gaming. Contemporary debates often revolve around the distinction between declared wars and undeclared armed conflicts, the rise of hybrid warfare, the ethics of cyber warfare and the complex moral dilemmas arising, the role of international organizations in maintaining peace, and the responsibility paradox that confronts nations entangled in endless cycles of conflict. As we grapple with these complex issues, we are forced to confront a fundamental question: in an increasingly interconnected world, can the traditional concept of state of war truly capture the nuances of modern conflict, or must we develop new paradigms for understanding the dynamics of peace and war? Within such considerations one cannot avoid also questioning the nature of free will and determinism in such events.