INTRODUCTION

The current geopolitical landscape is witnessing a palpable escalation of tensions

between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, specifically in

relation to the territorial dispute concerning the region referred to as the West Philippines Sea, or

alternatively, the South China Sea. In recent events, a contentious incident has unfolded, wherein

the Philippine Military has levied allegations against Chinese Coast Guard vessels for their

purported encroachment upon the former's supply operations, coupled with the employment of

water cannons to douse Philippine naval vessels. The city of Manila has aptly denoted the actions

as unduly extravagant and affronting, whereas Beijing adamantly maintains that it has

demonstrated judicious self-control. 1

On 22 January 2013, the Republic of the Philippines, driven by its unwavering

commitment to the pursuit of justice and the preservation of international order, initiated the

arbitral proceedings against the People's Republic of China. This legal recourse was undertaken

with the intention of addressing the contentious matter of their distinct "maritime entitlements"

and the intricate question of the legality surrounding Chinese activities within the vast expanse of

the South China Sea. In a manner befitting the intellectual discourse of our time, China, through

a diplomatic missive dated 19 February 2013, conveyed its resolute repudiation of the arbitration

to the Philippines. From the perspective of the Chinese government, it is contended that the

Arbitral Tribunal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter at hand. This

contention is grounded in China's nuanced acceptance of dispute resolution mechanisms as

enshrined within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is

maintained by China that its acceptance of said mechanisms is circumscribed, specifically

1
Dispute May Foster Insecurity in South China Sea. https://www.voanews.com/a/analysts-china-philippine-territorial-dispute-may-
foster-insecurity-in-south-china-sea/7225801.html
excluding matters pertaining to the delimitation of maritime boundaries and the determination of

historic titles. 2 The tribunal's ruling undoubtedly constitutes a legal triumph for the Philippines

vis-à-vis China, as the judges have reached a unanimous consensus on nearly all the inquiries

posited by the Philippines. Of particular significance is the tribunal's pronouncement that China

bears an obligation to adhere to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS), coupled with the unequivocal assertion that the award possesses legal force and is

binding upon China.

According to Blake Herzinger, a researcher at the esteemed United States Studies Center

at the University of Sydney, China has undeniably exerted its influence over the status quo in the

South China Sea for a considerable span of two decades, unimpeded by any concerted

opposition. This observation, shared during a telephonic conversation with the Voice of

America, prompts us to reflect upon the profound implications of China's ability to effect

substantial changes in this region without encountering any organized resistance.

In order to establish a harmonious maritime environment and assert their sovereign

rights, Herzinger posits that the Philippines must demonstrate a resolute willingness to engage in

direct confrontation with the Chinese coast guard and maritime militia. In contemplating the

matter at hand, it becomes evident that the Philippines shall endeavor to rely upon the alliance

with the United States as a source of support.3

In light of the escalating tensions between the two nations, the contemplation of resorting

to aggressive warfare emerges as a potential course of action. The provocative actions

2
Legal Victory for the Philippines against China: A Case Study. https://globalchallenges.ch/issue/1/legal-victory-for-the-philippines-
against-china-a-case-study/
3
Dispute May Foster Insecurity in South China Sea. https://www.voanews.com/a/analysts-china-philippine-territorial-dispute-may-
foster-insecurity-in-south-china-sea/7225801.html
undertaken by the Chinese vessels not only engender that possible, but also cultivate an

ambiance of fear within the Filipino populace. The subsequent course of action undertaken by

the Philippine Government ought to be predicated upon a comprehensive array of principles and

a well-defined framework that not only encompasses efficacious strategies for safeguarding its

sovereignty, but also embraces judicious measures for ensuring the welfare and security of its

people.

The Just War Theory4 stands as a profound and cogent philosophical and ethical

framework. Its purpose lies in the discernment of the legitimacy of employing military force

within particular circumstances. The concept in question, originally formulated by St. Augustine

within the context of early Christian thought, possesses a remarkable capacity for transcendence,

enabling its application to the multifaceted realm of contemporary conflicts, even those

pertaining to territorial disputes.

The present study endeavors to establish an initial framework for the purpose of

wisely engaging with the territorial conflict pertaining to the West Philippine Sea, drawing upon

the philosophical underpinnings of Augustine's Just War Theory. The overarching goal of this

endeavor is to circumvent the occurrence of armed hostilities while safeguarding the integrity of

the nation's territory, sovereignty, and citizenry. The present inquiry shall derive a framework

from the pertinent principles expounded in Augustine's discourse on the just war, while

concurrently assimilating profound insights from the gaps discovered in the scholarly works of

leading authors who have contributed exceptional treatises on the aforementioned theory.

4
The Just War Theory, commonly referred to as the doctrine of the "just war," emerged from the intellectual prowess of Saint
Augustine of Hippo during the epochal 4th and 5th centuries.
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

It is irrefutable that China's level of preparedness for armed conflict be apparent, given

the advantageous confluence of its international political relations and technological

advancements, which far surpass the economic standing of the Philippines. While it is evident

that the United Nations and the United States of America have provided their support, it is

imperative to acknowledge that the unfortunate reality of warfare is the inevitability of

casualties. Insofar as this proposition remains operative within the thought of the Filipino people,

particularly those domiciled in the Western Philippines, and in light of the dissemination of

reports pertaining to unwarranted hostilities, the specter of armed conflict not only engenders

anxiety among the citizenry, but also supposes the nature of a national security concern

necessitating an intelligent and humanitarian approach.

The Just War Theory is a set of ethical and philosophical principles that aim to provide

criteria for determining when the use of military force is morally justifiable and how that force

should be employed in armed conflicts. The theory seeks to balance the need to address serious

threats and injustices with the ethical imperative to limit violence and protect human dignity. It

has evolved over centuries, with various thinkers contributing to its development, and serves as a

framework for assessing the morality of engaging in war. Just war theory is rooted in the belief

that there are certain conditions that must be met in order for a war to be considered morally

justifiable. These conditions include having a just cause, legitimate authority to declare war, and

a reasonable chance of success. Additionally, the theory emphasizes the importance of

proportionality and discrimination in the use of force, meaning that the harm caused by military

action should not outweigh the potential benefits and that civilians should be protected from

unnecessary harm.
 The occurrences of confrontations between the military forces of China and the

Philippines have been observed to be potentially disseminated through various news outlets.

However, it is an undeniable truth that a considerable number of events remain shrouded in

confidentiality, shielded from the prying eyes of the general public. The aforementioned concept

bears resemblance to the principle of noncombatant immunity as expounded in Augustine's Just

War Theory. The deliberate withholding of information regarding the discreet conflicts

transpiring in the West Philippine Sea carries profound ramifications, as it suggests the potential

existence of a concealed state of hostilities unknown to the general populace. This notion arises

from the recognition that the public, being noncombatants, inherently possess a rightful claim to

immunity.

The research aims to determine and explain the key principles inherent in Augustine's

Just War theory, with a particular emphasis on their relevance and applicability to the Philippine

Territorial Disputes. This attempts to shed light on essential and verifiable information pertaining

to the occurrences taking place in the controversial West Philippine Sea and South China Sea

Territorial Dispute. Through a meticulous examination of Augustine's profound Just War theory,

it shall establish a comprehensive framework in examining the ethical implications that arise

from the controversial territorial dispute.

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

In John Mar Mattox's St. Augustine and the Theory of Just War," the justification of a

state in going to war constitutes the best available remedy for righting injustices. In the absence

of divine command, he argues that Augustine does not espouse a favorable position to the use of
warfare. In this discourse, it is evident that Augustine assumes a pivotal role in the analysis of

the perpetration of injustices by individuals who subsequently incur the wrath of the divine.

Augustine proceeds to discern that these acts of injustice serve as unequivocal testament to the

inherent justice within the divine command.5 He perceives no necessity for any form of

justification to accompany this divine justice. This work exhibits a deficiency in terms of the

objective definition of injustices or the establishment of a comprehensive framework of moral

principles, which would enable one to determine of a series of offensive actions to indicate as

injustice. This requires a comprehensive examination of Augustine's justification for the punitive

aspect inherent in the concept of a just war. This originates in the study of the Old Testament,

wherein the people of God engaged in warfare.

While in John Mark Mattox the morality of the actors in a just war is not questioned,

John Langan, in his Elements of St. Augustine’s Just War Theory, there is a concern regarding

the morality of the actors in just war. According to him, there are three elements to consider for a

war to be just: the act, the agent, and the authority for the action. The agent is a moral agent who

is free to perform or not without making himself or herself liable to moral criticism or blame.

While violence is prima facie wrong, he notes that a divine authorization may justify the act.
6
What is questionable in this interpretation is that of the divine authorization, especially in the

modern era. There can be no clear evidence that a war is justified by the command of God,

instead the principles of ethics and morality become the sole bases of God’s authorization. War

is a prima facie evil, considering that it is employed by extreme violence. There must be a set of

moral principles to guide the competent authorities of a nation to justify going to war.

5
John Mark Mattox. Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War. Continuum: The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX.
2006.
6
John Langan. The Elements of St. Augustine’s Just War Theory. The Journal of Religious Ethics, Spring, 1984, Vol. 12, No.1. pg. 19-
38. Blackwell Publishing Ltd on behalf of Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc
 In Augustinian Just War Theory and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the concept that

war is prima facie evil is arguable, since Augustine’s vision of just war is a war of loves and that

even war must be governed by love as much as possible. With this notion, Augustine retains

Cicero’s basic definition of just cause as the redress of and punishment for incurred injuries

(ulciscendi et puniende), yet he masterfully introduces the importance of interior motives thereby

establishing the principle of right intention. Here, Augustine not only requires divine authority.

There must be just cause and right intention. 7However, the credibility of the legitimate authority

principle, also present in this work, is questionable. Here, Augustine supports the notion that all

political power stems from God either by command or permission (Romans 13:1). Thereby

political leaders become the authority to wage wars. In that context, the emperor or the king were

anointed by the Church, therefore, rule by divine right. This context, however is not applicable to

the contemporary era. If the act of violence through war be justified by Divine Authority, the gap

between the competent authority of a state and that of the Divine must be bridged logically.

There must be ways in which political decisions, especially in conflict resolutions, be guided by

Divine providence, with respect to the Church-State separation principle.

While it is challenging to find implications of the divine providence in just war in the

medieval era to the context of contemporary era, it is still possible. In Frederick Russel's The Just

War in the Middle Ages, the Augustinian Just War theory discusses warfare as a function of

divine providence, the purpose of which is to enforce punishment upon the transgressions of sin

and crime. The author argues that the Christian Crusade, in its essence, can be categorized as a

ecclesiastical wars, thus justified as authorized by the Church and that has divine authority.8 In

this work, Augustine’s Just War is viewed as circled as ecclesiastical in nature. Yet it is
7
Augustinian Just War Theory and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Confessions, Contentions, and the Lust for Power). Ed. Craig J.
N. de Paulo, Patrick A. Messina. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York. 2011.
8
Frederick H. Russel. The Just War in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press. London 1975.
important to note that Augustine is not only a theologian author, but mostly philosophical. His

justification of war is not purely retrospective, otherwise his works would not have been a source

of multiple just war principles. In the lens of Russel, the just war theories have had the dual

purpose of restraining and justifying violence, a self-contradictory exercise. In this view,

Augustine may seem to encourage more wars than to limit most. It is essential, then, to simplify

a principle that in Augustine’s justification of a war, it must be a last resort option.

Augustine’s estimation of human nature led him to concentrate his political philosophy

on the fundamental needs, and the need most fundamental for human beings is peace. In

Alexander F. C. Webster’s The Virtue of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East

and West, Augustine sees war as inevitable to fallen humanity. No one is secure from war, but

everything works to the good under God’s providence, and that includes war. In this book,

people can never do evil that good may come, so war can never be the choice of a lesser evil, for

Augustine. 9Here, justified violence for Augustine is something that is demanded partly for the

sake of justice and peace, and ultimately for charity. (The end of war is always peace, just as

doing good is always the goal of human actions, and it is not war that forestalls doing good, but

malice of the heart: a lack of charity [Sermons 302.15]). In this work, it is clear that Augustine

does not enclose his just war theory as ecclesiastical in nature, he instead, draw a principle from

the very nature of humanity that war is inevitable, and peace as the ultimate goal, may be

justified.

Augustine’s Just War Theory is not purely punitive. Christian just war begins with

Augustine, who appropriated from Roman politics the idea of a just war for defense or

punishment. In one his greatest and longest works, The City of God, he argued that any true

9
Fr. Alexander F.C. Webster. The Virtue of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East and West. Regina Orthodox Press
Inc. 2004.
republic must serve the welfare of the people, that to do so requires justice, and that true justice

is only possible where the God of Jesus Christ is shown true piety and worship. In Lisa Sowle

Cahill’s Blessed are the Peacemakers (Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding), Augustine sets

limits on violence, and he tries to bring permission to commit violence into constant contract

with the norm of love by specifying that the Christian Warrior must always act in love even in

acting violently.10 This is considered as Augustinian caution, wherein even Christians who

struggle honestly and at personal cost to use violent interventions only for humanitarian aims,

those with a sincere motivation toward serving the vulnerable neighbor, will find themselves

implicated in causing further destruction.11

10
Lisa Sowle Cahill. Blessed are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding. Fortress Press. Mineapolis. 2019.
11
Maria Teresa Dávila, “Breaking from the Dominance of Power and Order in Augus-
tine’s Ethic of War,” in Augustine and Social Justice, 156-159.