HOW DOES BUDDHISM COMPARE WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, AND CAN IT CONTRIBUTE TO HUMANISING WAR?

ABSTRACT

This article examines Buddhist teachings relevant to the regulation of war and compares them with international humanitarian law (IHL) and the just war tradition by which it has been informed. It argues that Buddhist ethics broadly align with IHL rules to minimise harm inflicted during war, and that Buddhism’s psychological resources can help support IHL to improve compliance with common humanitarian norms. Indeed, Buddhist mindfulness techniques can support even non-Buddhist combatants by enhancing their psychological resilience and capacity to fight with skill and restraint. While IHL is a legal regime that legitimises violence under certain conditions, and lays down clear universally ratified rules, Buddhism is primarily an ethical and psychological system that addresses the motivations and inner roots of behaviour and can be understood and interpreted in different ways. In this respect, Buddhism overlaps with the field of military ethics, and can contribute much to enhance military training. However, while the centrality of non-harming (ahiṃsā) to Buddhism dictates that extraordinary efforts should be made to prevent war or otherwise minimise the harm inflicted – thereby checking interpretations of IHL that are overly permissive – Buddhism’s consequent reluctance to legitimise and thereby institutionalise war, and the ambiguity of its teachings in this regard, have generally precluded it from developing clear just war guidelines for belligerents to follow, and Buddhist resources to improve the conduct of hostilities have remained largely untapped. Mainstream traditions of Buddhist ethics must also be distinguished from more esoteric and localised beliefs and practices, and from the lived Buddhisms with which most lay Buddhists are more familiar, which do not necessarily embody the same degree of restraint. Belligerents might therefore have different conceptions or expectations of Buddhism depending on their culture and particular circumstances, or be unclear about what it says on the conduct of war.

KEYWORDS:

• International humanitarian law
• IHL
• Buddhism
• war
• karma
• armed conflict
• just war
• jus in bello
• jus ad bellum
• intention
• compliance
• military ethics
• psychology

Abbreviations

Primary Buddhist Texts

An. A$\dot{n}$guttara Nikāya. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. 2012. The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the A$\dot{n}$guttara Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom.

Dhp. Dhammapada. Translated by Valerie J. Roebuck. 2010. The Dhammapada. London: Penguin. See also, translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita. 1996. The Dhammapada: The Buddha’s Path of Wisdom. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/index.html

Dn. Dīgha Nikāya. Translated by Maurice Walshe. [1987] 1995. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom.

Jat. Jātaka. Translated by various hands under Edward Byles Cowell. 1895-1907. The Jātaka or Stories of the Buddha’s Former Births, 6 vols. London: Pali Text Society. References by volume and page number.

Mn. Majjhima Nikāya. Translated by Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. 1995. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom.

Sam. Saṃyutta Nikāya. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. 2000. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha. A Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom.

Sn. Sutta Nipāta. Translated by Kenneth Roy Norman. 1984. The Group of Discourses (Sutta–Nipāta) Vol. 1, with alternative translations by IB Horner and Walpola Rahula. London: Pali Text Society. Also, translated by Kenneth Roy Norman. 1992. The Group of Discourses (Sutta-Nipātā) Vol. II, Revised Translation with Introduction and Notes. London: Pali Text Society.

Vin. Vinaya Piṭaka. Translated by Isaline Blew Horner. 1938-1966. The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-pitaka), 6 vols. London: Pali Text Society. References by volume and page number.

IHL Texts

AP I (Additional Protocol I) Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977.

AP II (Additional Protocol II) Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977.

Common Article 3 Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

CIHL Customary International Humanitarian Law, according to the ICRC study. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home

St Petersburg Declaration Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, 29 November / 11 December 1868.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dr Stefania Travagnin, Professor Peter Harvey, Dr Elizabeth Harris, Professor Kate Crosby, Dr Noel Trew and Daniel Ratheiser for their helpful comments on the various drafts of this paper.

Disclosure statement

This article has been supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Notes

1. However, the ‘reasonable commander’ standard was expressly rejected as unworkable during the negotiation of Additional Protocol I.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Andrew Bartles-Smith

Andrew Bartles-Smith manages the ICRC’s Global Affairs Unit in Asia. He has many years of experience engaging with religious circles and non-state armed groups in the region, and has pioneered ICRC efforts to promote research and debate on IHL and religious teachings. He currently leads ICRC projects on Buddhism and IHL, and Hinduism and IHL, and recently established the ICRC’s Religion and Humanitarian Principles website with Daniel Ratheiser and other colleagues.