2020 IB Extended Essays

Jus in bello

gyh992

to Book 3 (Chapter 12, Section I), in the case of a just war, there are three conditions in which

the destruction of property is permissible: when it is a necessity to survive, to solve a debt or

inequality, or if there is a deserving of “evil”. Grotius expands on his points, stating that if

destruction of property reaps no benefits then it should not be done. Then, in Section II, Grotius

states that if the property is profitable, its destruction should be refrained from. One of the more

notable laws he outlines – notable considering the context of the Thirty Years’ War – is in

Section VI, where he explains the position of sacred places. Grotius theorises that while they

can be destroyed with impunity in a solemn war, in a just war, if they cause no harm, they

should be preserved, “…particularly among those who worship the same God, in accordance

with the same law, even if perhaps they disagree in respect to certain doctrines or points of ritual.”. 19 The destruction of property was chosen as the second criteria to analyse as many of

the facilities in both Drogheda and Wexford were heavily damaged following their respective

battles.

The historical evidence is arguably unclear on whether Cromwell’s actions on the destruction

of property were permissible as the judgement relies on the vague wording of Grotius. The

fact that Cromwell destroyed property, however, cannot be denied due to the voracity of the

primary sources. During the Siege of Drogheda, Cromwell found numerous Irish soldiers

hiding in the steeple of the town’s St. Mary’s Catholic Church. Upon discovering this,

Cromwell himself ordered that the church be set alight. Those who remained in the church perished, while those who fled were struck down and killed on the spot. 20 This is in clear

violation of the law outlined in Book 3 (Chapter 12, Section VI), as a sacred place that caused

no harm was destroyed. Even more property was destroyed in the Sack of Wexford. Cromwell

had planned to use the town as a winter base for his army, due to its port and infrastructure.

However, in the town’s sacking, its facilities were so badly damaged that Cromwell had to change his plans, with heavy repairs being necessary to fix the widespread destruction. 21 It is

difficult to determine that this violates Grotius’ laws, as there is reasonable justification that

the Irish were deserving of “evil”. However, what is clear is that the damage to the town

violated at least part of the law, as destroying the port and other facilities yielded no military

benefits to Cromwell, and in fact set them back by ruining their plan. Therefore, in terms of

destruction of property, Cromwell at least partially violated the laws of war.

19 Hugo Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis. 20 Tom Reilly, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy . 21 Micheál Ó Siochrú, God’s Executioner .

7