The history of war is as old as human history itself. As long as there have been humans who identify themselves as a group, whether by race, culture, tribe, religion, nation state or family bonds, there has been conflict between different groups that can result in organised or ritualised bloodshed. The larger and more powerful the groups, the greater the latent potential for violence. The origin of conflicts give the appearance of being varied: competition for resources; the forceful imposition of religious dogma; control and occupation of territory; the winning of honour in accordance with martial cultural norms; the desire of the powerful for even greater power; fear or hatred of the ‘other’; to name but a few. Philosophers and scholars of war have sought to distil the basic reasons for conflict between human groups and these are taught to students at war colleges. Oft cited is Thucydides’ justification for conquest and empire by the Athenians, through pressure of three of the strongest motives: fear, honour and interest.¹ Another standard reference is the explanation proffered by Clausewitz that war is act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will; with war merely the continuation of policy by other means.²

Regardless of the causes for the use of organised and systemic violence by one group against another, the long history and prevalence of war could well be seen as a source of despair for the future of humanity, reflecting the fallibility of reason and the frailty of the human condition. It is therefore a source of hope that human societies, across eras, geography and cultures, have also placed restraints upon how war is conducted. There are still adherents to the concept of kriegraison, the argument that necessity knows no law, but the historical evidence is much to the contrary. While the Twentieth and Twenty-First centuries have given witness to the rise and rise of international humanitarian law, these developments should be viewed in the context of the deep currents of history and the ongoing clash of civilisations.

Modern international humanitarian law lays claim to universality but its essentially European origin gives rise to contest. The belief in the superiority of Western culture by Europeans, and countries of European origin, has been a constant theme of the last few centuries, and only in recent times has this reverted from the universality of Christianity to the universality of laws and norms. Western concepts of universality could just as easily be perceived as the current wave of colonialism by cultures with a recent history of being dictated to by Westerners, who used superior methods and means of warfare to enforce their will.³

It is therefore useful to look outside the origins and framework of modern humanitarian law, both by going deeper into the past in the West, and by looking to non-western cultures, to examine the manner in which war was conducted and the constraints that were placed upon it. This work is largely one of historical study rather than of law. It does not seek to draw linkages between cultural restraints in wars of the past, and modern international humanitarian law principles, to provide deeper roots for customs and practices. It nonetheless provides insights into the regulation of hostilities through cultural norms across a range of cultures and eras. In doing so, it provides a glimpse of universality: the imposition of restraints in war is itself a norm that appears to transcend cultural divides.

I commend this work to students of war, law and history. It is a valuable contribution to understanding the ways in which war has ever been the subject of rules and restraints and should give some pause for thought to the most earnest of Clauswitzian adherents.

Air Commodore Pat Keane am, csc

Director-General, Military Legal Service

Australian Defence Force