The theory of Just War is a concept of defensive warfare rather than offensive warfare. The idea has been abused today to justify pre-eminent aggression for the sake of quelling later distress. The theory of natural right of course plays a part, where the cause of rebellion is in preserving the rights inherent in oneself, and since antiquity, slavery has been justified by the cowardice of prisoners of war, who willingly forfeit their natural rights in return of life. This common sense is still present in Locke and Rousseau into the modern period. So then, all men assert their rights in defense, and are justified on that basis, while surrender is the admission of one's lack of natural rights, and therefore have no rule over themselves. Slave rebellions then (such as the Third Servile War, 73-71 BCE) in which Spartacus becomes a legendary figure, display the affirmative humanity of the bound (e.g. your rights cannot be granted, but only fought for). A foundational class war central to the Roman Republic was the Struggle of the Orders, beginning in 500 BCE, between patricians and plebs, and creating such codefied laws as the Twelve Tables (450 BCE) which formalised existing common law. Here, law becomes a constitutional instrument of respecting rights. Aristotle in his account of Athens writes on the reign of Solon (590 BCE) who mediated between the pre-established laws of Draco (which gave supremacy to the strong and wealthy) and the masses, who were largely made debt slaves. Solon repealed the laws and also cancelled all public and private debts (Seisachtheia), codefying a new constitution of class harmony, borne from rebellion. Nonetheless, neither the rich or poor were satisfied, and so Solon exiled himself. Here, class war brings legal re-constitution, such as we see in later revolutionary periods, such as England (1653-88), France (1789) and the USA (1776-1865). We see from myth, the Trojan War, which has its complications, since Paris stole Helen from Menelaus, urging the conflict from an original infringement, yet the Greeks hired many mercenaries to loot Troy of its treasures. In the end, a pact of peace is met between Achilles and Priam, and so perhaps the resolution of conflict by a truce or compromise also serves as a justice of its own, like Solon, though people may grow weary of peace and desire more for themselves, respectively. We see then that justice in conflict must be based in a protection of one's rights, and so the aggressor against rights is always wrong, whilst defensive measures can also be excessive, by not simply restoring what is lost, but by claims of compensation. We see this in ancient law as well, as written here:
>>>/edu/26054The overplus of an original damage is also economically intrinsic to such mercantile devices as "risk" and usury, subjective factors of valuation, which in my citation of Anglo-Saxon law, chiefly relates to class position. So then, if (x) steals from (y) how do we quantify the additional rate on return which is owed, and does this criminal compensation also operate in war (e.g. international law)? For example, does Paris simply owe Helen back alone, or does he owe something more than her basic return? We see attempts to bribe the Greeks from the Trojans, as a means for their acquiesence, and so this understanding is inherent. Is the capture of Troy then a just compensation, and if so, is Troy wrong for defending itself? We see in Aristotle's account, that debt-slavery met the means of submitting to what is owed, and so the capture of Troy, along with the enslavement of men may reflect a debt being paid - the curse of a bloodline then may begin by the debts of the father, but is there equal justice in this? We read in the Old Testament, the period of service being 7 years for Jacob, after which his contract expires. We read something similar in Robinson Crusoe (1719), that after a period of tutelage, the Christianised African slave will be made free by the Portuguese, and so this act of redemption is justified by its temporary nature, while say, the slaying of Trojan men is permanent. So then, is the enslavement of Troy justified, but not the murder? Where there is no compromise, there can be no peace, at least. Finally, the Greeks defeated the Trojans by violating the peace set between Achilles and Priam via the wooden horse, and so this violation is unlawful and thus unjustified. To cheat is to win, but at the cost of honour and fair play. War has its own laws, we must imagine.