Just War against Barbarians: Revisiting the Valladolid Debates between Sepúlveda and Las Casas

Abstract

Contemporary just war theory is experiencing a period of renegotiation as scholars grapple with the dimensions the war on terror places on the relationship between justice and war. A closer examination of the history of the tradition reveals that such intellectual moments have occurred before, and represent a philosophical heritage which can be probed for insight into current questions. We turn to the 1550–1 Valladolid debates between Sepúlveda and Las Casas to gain insight into some of the questions facing just war theorists today because the debates lay bare the logic for expanding jus ad bellum in the case of those perceived to be barbarians, and a compelling counter-argument. Sepúlveda proposes that a more expansive understanding of jus ad bellum is necessary in the case of barbarians, defining just cause in terms of identity and the natural law, balanced by humanitarian ends such as saving the innocent and spreading the natural law. Las Casas illustrates the dangers of Sepúlveda's position and offers an alternative framework of jus ad bellum that focuses on injury and warns against including humanitarian benefits in the just cause criterion. Las Casas' ultimate wisdom lies in arguing for the restriction of jus ad bellum in the face of those who make compelling arguments, draped in moral universals and humanitarian imperatives, for its expansion.