Incontri mancati: de Vitoria e de Mariana non arrivano a Gaza

While foreign policy and international affairs are increasingly showing a new kind of worldwide tension, the legal reflections on concepts such as ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ wars seem to have attracted a deeper level of attention. The most common conclusion is that an accepted system of interstate regulation has failed to hold influence, and as a result, the proper international jurisdictions are struggling to tackle serious daily violations. Many of these issues could be reasonably predicted because lack of effectiveness has always been the weakest aspect of the international legal protection of fundamental liberties. The effort to curb the occurrence of wars has been an important part of attempts to theorize an equitable legal framework. The scholars most engaged in this ‘transepocal enterprise’ (Francisco Suárez, Juan de Mariana, Francisco de Vitoria, among others) have strongly emphasized the importance of harmony, support for the common good and the need for an insurmountable limit of proportionality in military conflicts. It has been a precise argumentative strategy more than a dogmatic collection of implicit and/or fixed inherent principles.  The main risk in re-reading these classic texts lies in assuming that their theses are self-evident, autonomously and automatically adaptable to the current political landscape. This essay will argue that the doctrines analyzed need to be traced back to the period in which they first emerged in order to recognize their peculiar religious-cultural heritage. Only then can a conscious valorization of international human rights discourse be endeavored.