Bellum Moralis:

Centering Ethics in Armed Conflicts to Mitigate Civilian Casualty   

By Richard Mathewson writing for The Kincade Society

Can War Be Ethical?

On its face, “war” doesn’t seem ethical. How could something so heinous, so violent have anything to do with ethics. A more pointed question is: How is killing ever moral? Especially the “pre-meditated” killing that defines war.  

In criminal law, pre-meditated killing is a capital offense. In war, it is effective execution of the mission. Yet, just as criminal law allows for justified killing in self-defense, so, too, does the Law of Armed Conflict (also, the Law of War) provide exceptions for killing.

The Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations starts by stating a determination to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” but proceeds to describe two exceptional situations where use of force is justified: Article 42—when measures to mitigate “threats to the peace” and “acts of aggression” that do not employ armed force are inadequate; and Article 51—the “inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.”¹

The Charter tasked the Security Council with the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” Art. 24(1).² Thus, here, a collective of nations agreed that for peace to be secured, use of force would be a necessary evil.  

War is a paradox. Despite the seeming contradiction that war is the opposite of peace, it is war that makes peace possible. This is reflected in the Latin maxim, Si vis pacem, para bellu—“If you want peace, prepare for war.”

History reveals a general acknowledgment of the necessity of war. The book of Ecclesiastes 3:8, written sometime B.C.E., discussed a “time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”³

An ancient Chinese military treatise, known as The Art of War, compiled sometime in the 5^th century B.C.E., discusses military strategy and tactics in great depth. 

But war must be conducted according to ethical guidelines and universal standards, or it loses purpose and becomes destructive. Ethical war constrains the conflict, reducing civilian casualties and unnecessary killing. Importantly, the conduct of war must never unjustly infringe on the rights of civilians nor deprive the innocent of their lives.   

This practice of using established law to protect the innocent can be found in the annals of early history. The Code of Hammurabi, a collection of “laws” from the 2nd millennium B.C.E., spoke of their purpose being that “the strong should not harm the weak.”⁴

The Epilogue in the Code states:

LAWS of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land. Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. I have not withdrawn myself from the men…I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place. I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. With…mighty weapons, I have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted…I cherish the inhabitants of the land…in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans…⁵

The Tao Te Ching, Chinese wisdom literature written sometime in the 6^th century B.C.E., echoed this when it said, “some are naturally big and strong, and others will always be small; Some will be protected and nurtured, and others will meet with destruction.”⁶

Thus, thousands of years ago humanity believed in the use of force to ensure peace. This same principle resurfaces in the purpose of the Charter of the United Nations and Geneva Conventions in our time now. 

Mitigating Civilian Casualty in Conflicts

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, war is defined as, “a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.”⁷

Merriam-Webster further defines war as “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism…a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.”⁸

Although the first definition is general and ambiguous and may no longer describe what war represents, the second seems to more accurately encapsulate modern conflict. This is because the conflicts of today look nothing like the wars of the past.    

The old paradigm of war—state against state with identifiable armies battling each other in marked zones of conflict—has mutated into smaller skirmishes between states and non-state entities. Insurgency, guerilla warfare, more organized revolutions, piracy, proxy conflicts using non-state actors, and terrorism more accurately define modern conflicts.

Consequently, the laws and authorities relating to jus ad bellum—the right to wage war, and jus in bello—the conduct of war, may not be as clear as they once were because war itself is not what it once was. But this doesn’t excuse leaders from their responsibility to protect civilians against avoidable harm from conflict. If anything, it adds importance to this responsibility.

There exist guidelines for the various shapes war may assume. The Charter of the United Nations (mentioned briefly above) is one such guideline. The Preamble sets the tone for the purpose of this Charter:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…⁹

Thus, to save future generations from the scourge of war, this collective of nations agreed to use-of-force rules for this purpose. But the goal is ultimately the protection of people, not the waging of war for its own sake or for some other, unrelated reason.  

There are also the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocols Additional to the Conventions—"international treaties that constitute a component of international humanitarian law.”¹⁰ The four separate conventions include:

Geneva Convention I: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

Geneva Convention II: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea

Geneva Convention III: relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Geneva Convention IV: relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War¹¹

These four cover jus in bello concerns—when war is actively being waged. In particular, Convention IV pertains to the protection of civilians in an armed conflict. Protocols I and II go further to protect civilians regardless of whether the conflict is characterized as an international or domestic armed conflict.   

Importantly, there appears to be agreement between the international humanitarian law principles protecting citizens in times of conflict. This agreement signals a general trend in humanity toward mitigating civilian casualties in war.   

For example, Protocol I, related to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, incorporates the U.N. Charter in its Preamble by establishing “every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations…” and that “nothing in this Protocol or in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 can be construed as legitimizing or authorizing any act of aggression or any other use of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations…”¹²

Although Protocol II does not explicitly incorporate the Charter of the United Nations like Protocol I, it does use similar wording in its Preamble that was used in the Charter’s Preamble, reflecting implicit agreement between the two documents:

The High Contracting Parties, Recalling that the humanitarian principles enshrined in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, constitute the foundation of respect for the human person in cases of armed conflict not of an international character,

Recalling furthermore that international instruments relating to human rights offer a basic protection to the human person,

Emphasizing the need to ensure a better protection for the victims of those armed conflicts,

Recalling that, in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates or the public conscience…¹³

Importantly, Protocol II, like Protocol I, emphasizes the protection of civilians. In its Preamble, Protocol I mentions protection of people twice whereas Protocol II mentions it three times. Moreover, Protocol II directly relates the protection of civilians to “respect for the human person,” “human rights,” and “principles of humanity,” further establishing the connection between protection of civilians and humanitarian ideals.

This closely parallels the humanitarian theme inherent in the Code of Hammurabi. Like the ancients before, humanity in our time now must place the protection of the innocent and vulnerable at the forefront in every conflict in which it is engaged. Respect for humans and human rights must not be just another popular cliché, passionately discussed in the high towers of academia but quickly forgotten in the trenches of the battlefield.

It does no good to codify these humanitarian principles only to brush them aside during the very conflicts which they were designed to moderate. It is said that actions speak louder than words. This is even more relevant when confronting civilian casualty in armed conflict. Here, without taking action to prevent the death of innocents, words prohibiting this are meaningless.

This concern is not foreign to the public mind. It’s reflected from the collective consciousness, surfacing in various ways. Homeland, a television series based on the CIA and the war against terrorism, started out with civilian casualties in armed conflict as a major theme. Seargent Brody, a Marine sniper captured by a non-state hostile actor (al-Qaeda), was eventually turned by his captor to become an operative for terrorist activities. The underlying theme was the killing of civilians by drone strike—specifically, the death of the al-Qaeda leader’s son. Brody had developed a relationship with the boy, teaching him English, and the boy’s death as a casualty of war was too much for the Marine sniper. Worse, the head of the CIA claimed no children were harmed from the drone strike.    

In his work, The Decay of Lying, Oscar Wilde wrote, “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life.”¹⁴ The civilian casualty theme in Homeland reflects the collective anxiety related to more powerful weapons and destructive technology in modern war. The reality of life for many people who are exposed to armed conflict closely parallels this theme.

Recent reports of strikes by state actors in various conflicts throughout the world killing children and other innocent civilians validates the necessity of ethical decision-making in armed conflicts. While this may be a sanitized story line in a television series for many people, it is a lived experience for many others who feel firsthand the atrocity of becoming a casualty of war. Whether the impact is primary or secondary, the reality is very different for these people. Importantly, this signals an urgency to place ethics at the center of every discussion related to strategy and planning for armed conflict activities.      

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”¹⁵ Those engaging in armed conflict must not become the monsters they fight.

Civilian protection must be central to military strategy and operational planning. Mitigating civilian casualties must be meaningful with actionable steps, not empty platitudes meant to pacify a nervous public. To have any effect, this ethical consideration should become an internalized reality for all involved in the decisional process. Compliance is key here.

Conclusion

Conflict is part of the fabric of the human condition. Major changes in the evolution of humanity have come about through conflict between nations and civilizations. But with the grand changes that war brings, there are also atrocious harms and traumas. The ancients understood this reality, and they established guidelines to protect the vulnerable from the harm of war. Protecting the innocent is a theme that threads its way through history. This responsibility should remain a primary concern now, especially when war has taken on more destructive capabilities with greater impact on the civilian populace. The question, then, should not be whether war can be ethical but whether humanity will tolerate war that is not. Compliance with International Humanitarian Law is critical.    

References

¹ United Nations. (2026). United Nations Charter (full text). https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

² Id.

³ The Holy Bible, King James Version. (2026). Ecclesiastes 3:8. King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ecclesiastes-3-8/

⁴ Lillian Goldman Law Library. (2008). The Code of Hammurabi (L. W. King, Trans., with commentary from Charles F. Horne, Ph.D. (1915) and The Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, by the Rev. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, M.A. Litt.D.). https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamcode.asp

⁵ Id.

⁶ Lao Tzu. (2025). Tao Te Ching: Lao tzu (McDonald, J. H., Trans.). Sirius Publishing, Arcturus Publishing Limited. (Original work published ca. 6^th Century BCE)   

⁷ Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2024). War. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war.

⁸ Id.

⁹ United Nations, supra.

¹⁰ Library of Congress. (2026). Geneva Conventions Materials. https://www.loc.gov/collections/military-legal-resources/articles-and-essays/military-law-and-legislative-histories/geneva-conventions-materials/

¹¹ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs. (2026). UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements. http://un-documents.net/gc.htm

¹² NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs. (2026). Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. http://un-documents.net/gc-p1.htm

¹³ NGO Committee on Education of the Conference of NGOs. (2026). Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. http://un-documents.net/gc-p2.htm

¹⁴ Wilde, O. (2026). The Decay of Lying: A protest. Public Library UK. http://public-library.uk/ebooks/27/54.pdf

¹⁵ Nietzsche, F. (2020). Beyond Good and Evil. Arcturus Publishing.