This article was originally posted on the Armed Groups and International Law blog as a part of the Beyond Compliance Blog Symposium: How to Prevent Harm and Need in Conflict.  The symposium is jointly hosted by Armed Groups and International Law and Articles of War blogs and invites reflection on the conceptualisation of negative everyday lived experiences of armed conflict, and legal and extra-legal strategies that can effectively address harm and need. The symposium’s introductory post can be read here. 

. . . a ruler should protect sentient beings without burning their surroundings or ruining it, etc. A ruler should not vent his anger through cities or villages, ruining reservoirs, wrecking dwelling places, cutting down fruit trees, or destroying harvests, etc. In short, it is not right to destroy any well-prepared, well-constructed, and well-extended regions. How is this? These are sources of life commonly used by many sentient beings who have not produced any faults.

 

Ārya-satyaka-parivarta “Noble Discourse of the Truth-Teller” (an early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist text)

Introduction

As part of the Beyond Compliance Symposium, and in the light of contemporary humanitarian challenges, this post highlights the importance of looking to religious and non-Western thought systems to complement and reinvigorate dominant Western conceptions of humanitarian action. Insights gained from the recent International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) project on Buddhism and IHL are highly relevant in this regard, enriching our understanding of the psychological dimensions of armed conflict, and challenging a humanitarian paradigm which neglects other forms of life.

Contemporary challenges to international humanitarian law

In the absence of a strong enforcement regime, conventional humanitarian responses to armed conflict have centred on fostering compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) and, where relevant, international human rights law (IHRL). While IHL makes a central contribution towards the regulation of armed conflict, the protections it provides to non-combatants are not comprehensive. This is particularly evident with regard to collateral killing, whereby belligerents can inflict severe and reverberating harms on civilian populations while claiming to be in compliance with the law. IHL protections are further eroded by State and non-State actors who violate the law with impunity, or interpret it permissively to expand rather than limit their scope for violence.

In the light of these challenges, realisation is growing that an exclusive focus on the law is insufficient, and that extra-legal resources must be mobilised both to improve compliance with IHL and to promote a broader culture of restraint. Furthermore, some of the physical and psychological harms caused by armed conflict, and the needs that they generate, are not fully addressed by IHL, and it is therefore necessary to explore alternative frames of reference to better account for them. This will hopefully contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the negative lived experiences of armed conflict, and facilitate the development of solutions that prioritise the mitigation of harm and need as much as compliance with the law. Part of the solution involves empowering communities to protect and sustain themselves, where possible, so as not to over-rely on international institutions that sometimes over promise and under deliver.

Mobilising moral and religious resources in support of IHL

The appeal in a recent ICRC report for belligerents to uphold the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and of its President, Miljana Spoljaric, for States to uphold “their legal (and moral) responsibilities”, are acknowledgements that IHL rules need to be animated and supported by something more. It is worth reflecting on what this “spirit” might consist of, and whether it is served by a positivist focus on the law to the exclusion of extra-legal resources that might complement and support it. The spirit of the law presumably has a psychological or spiritual component, one that taps into the identities, emotions and morality of belligerents, and therefore their core motivations. Consideration should also therefore be given to the religious and philosophical traditions which have contributed to socialising belligerents in diverse cultures, and from which the rules and ethics of war – and ultimately IHL – have emerged. Research has shown that moral and religious resources are powerful vectors for influencing the behaviour of belligerents, and IHL needs to be in dialogue with them if it is to remain relevant in many contexts. Religious or spiritual resources are also powerful coping mechanisms for many of those caught up in the trauma of armed conflict, contributing to bolstering their physical and psychological resilience.

While much effort has been made in recent years to find correspondences between IHL and various religious traditions, learning from other cultures means interrogating their differences as well. Diverse religious and philosophical resources often provide fresh insights and perspectives on the conduct of armed conflict, complementing dominant Western conceptions of humanitarian action, and contributing to more holistic and culturally adapted approaches that can better mitigate the suffering caused. Since the learning curve is likely to be steeper the more that these traditions diverge from Western ideas, this suggests looking beyond the monotheistic Abrahamic religions that have informed them towards traditions that have developed in other cultures, and might not share the same assumptions and biases.

Buddhist perspectives on armed conflict

Buddhism, for example, starts from some radically different first principles. Since it contains no creator or lawgiving God, there is less emphasis on laying down divine commandments or laws to be followed. In contrast, Buddhism advocates the following of voluntary training precepts to discipline the mind, with the ultimate goal of removing the mental poisons of greed, anger and desire which are the cause of suffering – including wars – and paving the way towards enlightenment or liberation. As such, Buddhism is primarily an ethical and psychological system to transform the inner life of individuals, increasing their self-awareness and control over the thoughts and emotions which are at the root of their behaviour. In this respect Buddhism shares with other religious traditions a focus on the intention of individuals, on the understanding that they will not properly behave, or voluntarily comply with rules, unless their underlying intentions are correct. This is why the Buddha emphasised that intention is the primary determinant of an action’s positive or negative karmic weight.

Buddhist psychology

Buddhism understands that wars are as much a psychological as a physical reality in the minds of those involved, and that we are all, to some degree, at war with ourselves. It takes seriously the importance of the emotions in influencing behaviour in a way that the law cannot, and shares with modern psychology an appreciation of the limitations of the rational actor model in this respect. Indeed, Buddhist Abhidhamma texts’ interrogation of the relative and subjective nature of our thoughts and emotions, and deconstruction of our perceived realities, mental constructs (samskāra) and afflictive mental states (kleśa), among other mental phenomena, anticipate modern constructivism and critical theory by 2000 years.

Buddhism’s receptiveness to the emotional dimension of armed conflict is illustrated, for example, by abhayadāna (‘the gift of fearlessness’), a Buddhist protection concept that emphasises the debilitating effects of fear on the mental and physical well-being of vulnerable communities in a way that IHL protections might not. While humanitarians understandably focus on civilian victims of violence and the physical and psychological trauma that they undergo, Buddhism is predisposed to direct as much attention to the spiritual or psychological wellbeing of combatants themselves, and to support fighters to act with restraint even in high-stress combat situations. Buddhism understands that the fog of war is as much a product of neurological overload and cognitive impairment as chaos in the physical environment, and evidence for the psychological impact of war on belligerents is evident in the high rates of moral injury, PTSD and suicide among active and retired military personnel. Meditation techniques have been used by a number of militaries – the US and Indian militaries, for example – to mitigate these psychological problems and to improve the resilience and mental functioning of fighters, better enabling them to fight with precision and restraint. Among the main messages that Buddhist monks pass to Buddhist combatants are to remain calm and avoid anger so that they are better able to fight with equanimity (upeksā), on the understanding that the psychological state of combatants is as determinative of their behaviour as the rules of engagement.

Non-harm and restraint

The concepts of non-harm (ahiṃsā) and restraint (saṃvara) are central to Buddhism. According to Buddhist ethics, belligerents will reap karmic consequences for their harmful actions in war, the severity of which also depends on the intentions behind them. It is therefore in the best interests of Buddhists first to avoid war as far as possible, and to maximise their restraint should war break out. Combatants therefore protect themselves by exercising restraint to protect others, generating their own mental armour, as described in the Theravāda Buddhist canon:

Those who engage in misconduct of body, speech, and mind… Even though a company of elephant troops may protect them, or a company of cavalry… still they leave themselves unprotected. For what reason? Because that protection is external, not internal… But those who engage in good conduct of body, speech, and mind protect themselves… Because that protection is internal, not external…

…

Conscientious, everywhere restrained, One is said to be protected.

 

Saṃyutta Nikāya I.168–9

Beyond common humanity to common sentience

Another important divergence from the mainstream Western tradition (with the exception of outliers such as St. Francis of Assisi, now the patron saint of ecology and animals) is Buddhism’s radical empathy with all sentient beings. Buddhism’s circle of moral concern extends beyond humanity to a conception of common sentience that still feels seminal to this day. Whereas IHL provisions to protect the natural environment are a recent addition, and predicated on the need to safeguard human livelihoods, concern for animals and the environment have been integral to Buddhism since its origins, providing a more inclusive framework for understanding the reverberating effects of armed conflict on interdependent human, animal and plant life.

The canonical jātaka stories (p. 374, 378, 394) of the previous births of the Buddha – also primary references for Buddhist statecraft – contain many accounts of his lives in animal form – as a war elephant and a war horse, for example – using restraint, compassion and emotional intelligence to minimise harm by skilful engagement in war. Another story depicts the deity Sakka (p. 414), who when fleeing through a wood from an asura (evil demi-god) army, ordered his own army to stop and turn around to prevent his chariot poles from striking the nests of birds, leaving them homeless or causing loss of innocent life. According to the commentary on this story, the birds in the nests were especially vulnerable because they were young, old and infirm, the other birds having flown off upon sensing the approaching army.

While these stories might appear fanciful, especially when compared to the care-less destruction of so many innocent human lives in today’s wars, they are also a salutary reminder of how far we have fallen from higher Buddhist ideals. The humanitarian bias of IHL and human rights instruments also runs very deep – it’s in the name after all. Animals are mentioned only as livestock in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. While medical personnel attached to armed forces are granted special protections under IHL, for example, entitling them to use the distinctive red cross and red crescent emblems, veterinarians are considered combatants unless they are exclusively engaged in tasks concerning human beings, such as the inspection of human food supplies (ICRC Commentary to GCI, Article 24, paragraph 1959).

Limitations of Buddhism with regard to armed conflict

However, the fact that Buddhism is so radically opposed to the infliction of harm has meant that it has also sometimes failed to fully engage with the reality of war, and to apply Buddhist principles where they are needed most. Theravāda Buddhist monastics, for example, are not permitted even to observe battles or military training, or to stay in military camps, except under exceptional circumstances. The Buddha resisted codifying rules of war, preferring to outline only foundational ethical principles in this regard. There is therefore no developed just war theory in Buddhism, and little explicit guidance for Buddhist combatants on the conduct of contemporary war.

Many confuse the radical non-harming that is expected of Buddhist monastics with lower expectations for Buddhist laymen who must balance Buddhist ideals with worldly responsibilities. Mainstream Buddhist ethics must also therefore be differentiated from the  lived Buddhisms with which the majority of lay Buddhists are more familiar, and do not necessarily reflect the same degree of restraint. While some Buddhist majority militaries have been responsible for serious IHL violations, and individual soldiers might be devout Buddhists, Buddhist ethics have not generally been institutionalised or integrated into secular military training, and Buddhist resources to regulate the conduct of hostilities have been largely untapped.

Complementary Buddhist and IHL approaches to humanitarian action

Correspondences between Buddhism and IHL are also considerable, and the differences in their perspectives on armed conflict suggest not that they are incompatible, but that they are complementary, and can compensate for each other’s shortcomings in this regard. Comparing Buddhism and IHL also increases mutual understanding and respect between them, as the ICRC’s Buddhism and IHL project has shown, opening up opportunities for further collaboration.

Buddhist organisations are meanwhile making their own contributions to the humanitarian sphere. The Buddha Tzu Chi Foundation, for example, established in 1966 by a Taiwanese Buddhist nun, Cheng Yen, and network of housewives, has expanded to become a major humanitarian player worldwide, with an estimated 10 million members and chapters in 68 countries, including a significant presence in mainland China. Unsurprisingly, Buddha Tzu Chi is heavily invested in environmental programmes in addition to disaster relief and medical treatment. The non-sectarian nature of the organisation means that it draws its staff and volunteers from a number of religions, and funds the construction of religious edifices such as churches and mosques. Buddha Tzu Chi volunteers bow to thank their beneficiaries for the opportunity they have provided them to improve their karma, a lesson in humility that many humanitarian professionals would do well to heed.

Further information

For more on Buddhism and IHL, check out the ICRC Buddhism and IHL Project and the accompanying open access Routledge book.

Those interested in studying for a Certificate in International Humanitarian Law and Buddhism might also take this new course, a collaboration between the ICRC and the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Colombo.

For more on Religion and Humanitarian Action in general, check out the Generating Respect Project and the ICRC’s Religion and Humanitarian Principles website.

*

Andrew Bartles-Smith has over twenty years’ experience working for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Asia, pioneering innovative approaches to engage with armed groups and religious circles, and spearheading the promotion of research and debate on correspondences between religious traditions and international humanitarian law (IHL). Andrew has launched major projects and international conferences on Islam and IHL, Buddhism and IHL and Humanitarian Affairs in Asia, as well as boosting humanitarian engagement with Hindu, Christian, Chinese and local/ indigenous traditions. Andrew is Co-editor of the book Buddhism and International Humanitarian Law (2023, Routledge), and author of a number of peer-reviewed articles on religion and IHL. He established the ICRC Religion and Humanitarian Principles website with Daniel Ratheiser and colleagues in 2021, and is on the advisory board of the Beyond Compliance Project. He holds a MA in International Relations and Contemporary War from the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, and has studied a number of Asian languages.