History has witnessed the failure of many endeavors to impose peace by war, cooperation by coercion, unanimity by slaughtering dissidents…. A lasting order cannot be established by bayonets.
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity…. I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
Religion, custom, and law are supposed to guide human society in the search for security and justice, but they have proven to be flawed in this regard. While many religious leaders have spoken out eloquently against war, in practice, most world religions have done little to stop it, essentially giving silent approval and letting it rage under certain—often very elastic—circumstances.
The Old Testament’s biblical commandment “Thou shalt not kill” seems an immutable call to pacifism and nonviolence—a moral foundation upon which civilized humanity can build. But, for religious adherents over several centuries, the Sixth Commandment has generally not been a hard-and-fast law. Not even Moses, the custodian of the Stone Tablets, appeared to be bound by its strictures. According to Exodus 32:28, the first thing Moses does, after descending from Mount Sinai to share the Decalogue with his followers, is to order the Levites to murder 3,000 of their companions for worshiping the Golden Calf (a violation of the Second Commandment).
The New Testament features a different case of divine wrath—this time directed against nature. In Mark 11:13–14, a hungry Jesus curses a fig tree when he discovers it has no fruit. The tree withers and dies. In contrast, we have the Prophet Mohammad’s instruction that believers plant a tree, even if the world is ending.
While the Torah and the Hebrew Bible forbid murder (ratzah)—the shedding of innocent blood—they allow the killing of enemy fighters during war (harag). The Koran (17:33) makes a similar distinction: “Nor take life—which Allah has made sacred—except for just cause.”
The phrase “just war”—a holy loophole introduced in Saint Augustine’s City of God in AD 426—was later expanded by Thomas Aquinas (1225– 1274). From 1095 to 1291, the Roman Catholic Church promoted a series of Holy Crusades as divinely sanctioned invasions—incursions that cost, by some estimates, 1.7 million lives.
International treaties to restrain or abolish war have a long history, but it’s a history of lofty goals undone by compromise. The 1907 Hague Convention and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions failed to prevent the ghastly conduct that rained bombs and poison gas on the battlefields of Europe. The 1907 “Laws and Customs of War on Land” and “Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War” contained no prohibitions against aerial bombardment. Under current humanitarian law, strategic bombers, attack fighters, and drones can all be used as long as they observe “military necessity,” “distinction” and “proportionality.” This leaves armies free to attack “military objectives” and cause harm to civilian property or lives so long as the damage is “proportional.”
Following World War I, which featured the novelty of German Zeppelins dropping bombs on Britain and France, world powers drafted The Hague Rules of Air Warfare. Unfortunately, the 1923 treaty was dismissed as “unrealistic” and never adopted.
The horrendous aerial bombings of the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) and the Second Sino-Japanese War (1936–38) prompted the League of Nations to craft a convention calling for the protection of civilians during aerial bombardments, but this 1938 convention was never ratified.
With the outbreak of World War II, Britain, Germany, and the U.S. agreed not to bomb civilian targets but, as thousands of historic photos attest, this pledge was not honored.
Following the end of World War II, the Nuremberg Charter condemned as a “war crime” the “wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or destruction not justified by military necessity.” During the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials, however, these specific war crimes were not addressed.
Beginning in 1949, a series of treaties governing the laws of war were adopted under the Geneva Conventions. Article 35(3) specifies that: “It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” The Convention’s Article 55 prohibits reprisals against the natural environment and imposes a duty of care on warring parties.
The Fourth Convention specifically addressed civilian rights in occupied territories but, once again, failed to address the issue of aerial bombardment. It wasn’t until 1977 that Protocol I was attached to the Geneva Conventions to specifically ban deliberate or indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
In a rare 1963 decision, a Japanese court ruled in Shimoda v. the State that the extraordinary power of the atom bomb and the distance from legitimate military land targets made the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki “an illegal act of hostilities under international law.” In 1996, the International Court of Justice concluded that the indiscriminate damage caused by nuclear weapons made their use illegal under international law. In 2007, this decision was adopted by the non-state International Peoples’ Tribunal.
These rulings did not sit well with Washington. Following the adoption of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court on July 19, 1998, the United States became one of only seven countries voting against the ICC. In 2001, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John R. Bolton explained why the United States would not ratify the ICC Treaty. Bolton bristled at the idea that the ICC might dare to “find the United States guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable.” (Upon receiving the required sixty ratifications, the Rome Statute entered into force on July 1, 2002.)
Nearly every “war crime” statute crafted in Geneva, Nuremberg, or The Hague contains an “escape clause.” Murdering innocent civilians, destroying cultural artifacts, poisoning waterways, incinerating forests are all permissible if “justified by military necessity.” In 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled that it could not conclude “definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense.”
While international bodies continue to struggle with rules for “proper” military conduct and definitions of war crimes, civil society continues to push for grassroots and institutional solutions.
As international law professor Steven Freeland, author of Addressing the Intentional Destruction of the Environment during Warfare, points out: “Just as international law has made great strides forward by classifying rape during armed conflict as a war crime—a crime against humanity, or even genocide in certain circumstances—we should recognize that intentional environmental destruction can also constitute an international crime.”
While human nature and human behavior are largely responsible for the continued aggravations of war, our habits and actions are subject to change. We can chose to act in defense of our rivers, oceans, forests, and skies. We have the power to choose life. We can dedicate ourselves to putting the Earth back in balance. Others already have embarked on the path to Ecolibrium. All we need do is to follow their signposts—or find our own trails.
Take the Profit Out of War is Major Gen. Smedley Butler’s simple prescription for putting an end to unprovoked and increasingly endless conflicts. Butler’s experience as one of America’s most decorated soldiers underscores the tactical wisdom of his 1935 proposal to reject the “racket” of waging (and staging) wars.
Ecology and War contains the text of a historic appeal written by David Brower, a legendary environmental leader who earned a Bronze Star in World War II and returned home to defend the wilderness as head of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and Earth Island Institute. Brower was one of the first to condemn the environmental impacts of war.
Why We Oppose War and Militarism is a collective statement of concern signed by a global coalition of more than 100 peace and social justice organizations that was issued in advance of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
In Defense of the Environment, a 2003 speech by former United Nations Environment Programme director Klaus Toepfer (1998–2006), underscores how words alone have failed to move the world away from war. He calls for more decisive action and, in particular, laws that safeguard peace by protecting the environment.
Protecting Nature from War, a UNEP policy statement from 2009, marks a significant attempt to extend the rule of law to the protection of nature. The next step is to recognize the defiling of the natural world as an international war crime—without exceptions.
Strategies for a More Peaceful World reviews a growing number of civil society campaigns intended to address the devastation of global militarism. Our short list documents more than thirty local and global initiatives and provides contact information for more than fifty leading international peace organizations.