In my very first essay with Providence, I attempted to reframe the first seven verses of Romans 13 by articulating the philosophical and theological assumptions that undergirded Paul’s vision of the polis:

• God’s moral law applies not only to individuals but also to civil authorities.
• God institutes civil authority (including the power to tax) for the common good.
• What is good can be known and acted on.
• Government has a duty to prudentially work towards the common good and defend it from foreign and domestic threats, this being the only legitimate use of state-sanctioned violence.
• We have a duty to work towards, encourage and fulfill that good in as, and in cooperation with, civil authorities.

While the focus of my previous piece was on the domestic implications of Romans 13 for democratic societies, it’s also worth asking: what are the implications of Paul’s political framework internationally? In a phrase: moral clarity.

Implications for International Law

Under a Romans 13 political framework, there’s no room for moral confusion in international law. Paul presumes that states, acting under the auspices of God’s sovereign authority, aim at real, objective goods and that leaders can be evaluated by whether or not they move their country domestically and internationally in the direction of those goods. Given that this represents the end of all just governments, states therefore have a duty to defend it.

As applied to internationalism, Paul’s articulation of role of the state and its sword of justice implies a moral hierarchy that legitimizes state action, especially in the murky waters of international conflict, relevant to Just War Theory and Christian Realism more broadly.

It is imperative for Christians to both recognize and act upon the truth that there is a universally recognizable moral law that both states and citizens are subject to. When states share a common understanding of that moral law and agree that it is conducive to human flourishing, they are far more likely to be aligned in national interests and political values. This is indeed the central claim of liberal international relations theory going all the way back to Immanuel Kant’s 1795 text Perpetual Peace.

Not all states rule justly, however, nor do they all observe the moral law with equal reverence. The Tao, as described by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man, does exist, but its status is contested in all lands and governments. At a state to state level, this creates friction and conflict. My own dissertation research indicated such pain points in diverging political cultures is a significant driver in modern international crises. This reality undermines the more utopian claims of liberal internationalism in IR, but it doesn’t actually support realist theories that tend to discount the role of international law and political culture in favor of raw power politics. Classic realism is often interpreted as an amoral framework that Niebuhr’s Christian realism sought to sanctify with a healthy dose of Christian anthropology and virtue.

In instances of conflict, this affirmation of God’s moral law, sovereign rule, and the state’s wielding of the sword to reward good and punish evil should certainly affirm human dignity, the violation of which must not only be recognized but also punished. Indeed that is exactly one of Aquinas and Grotius’ criteria for a Just War. 

Implications for National Sovereignty

Any conception of international law that is framed, founded on, or subject to an objective moral law will also impact how we think about national sovereignty. This is highly relevant in an era of great power competition between democracy and authoritarianism, but more deeply it is a culture clash between opposing theories of the state and its role in advancing human flourishing. National sovereignty, as Russia and China seek to define it, is ironclad and sacrosanct. It is an inviolable principle that gives the state exclusive right to any means necessary for the sake of self-preservation within its borders. The state is not legitimate according to the degree to which it respects human rights and promotes flourishing. Instead, the mere perpetuation of the state is sufficient justification for such actions as the herding of large populations into concentration camps, as with the Chinese Uighurs.

Are states seeking to uphold human dignity in international law under the auspices of God’s moral law therefore obligated to actively oppose the states that don’t? This would play right into the hands of authoritarian states like China and Russia that accuse the US of using “humanitarian intervention” as an excuse for imperialism. Are they right? Yes and no. Humanitarian intervention can be used as a smokescreen for imperial ambition, but the two are not equivalent terms.

As Daryl Charles has already noted, the reality of the moral law absolutely undergirds humanitarian intervention, which is a category of Just War. However, just as citizens choosing to oppose an unjust government is acceptable as a last resort in domestic affairs, so too is it acceptable to override the principle of national sovereignty of another country under extreme circumstances, such as genocide. For just as God’s sovereignty has worked to place governments in authority over their citizens, his sovereignty has also worked to place states in right relationship to one another, which includes a degree of accountability to other states. Perhaps God’s sovereign placement of nations is to, in part, generate conflict for purposes known only to Him, as seems to be implied in many places in Scripture. The final relationship of people “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” in Revelation 7:9 is before the throne of Christ; but that is the “not yet” of the “here and not yet” of Christian theology. In the time between the present and Christ’s return, it stands to reason that the work of all nations should be towards pacific relationships as the norm. 

The Hard Edge of Peace

Living in a world where evil exists necessitates a will and readiness to defend/preserve peace. Peacemaking, it would seem, can have a hard edge, and this conclusion ties Paul’s vision of the state as wielder of the sword of justice domestically into Christian Realism’s vision of the state (or states) as a wielder of the sword internationally.

Is a power like the US, then, supposed to rampage around the world righting every wrong and overthrowing every authoritarian government? To echo Paul in Romans 6, “May it never be!” The Just War framework demands a reasonable chance of success. A cause, no matter how just, will collapse into injustice should a war lead to greater destruction and suffering than what the status quo currently upholds.

In the final analysis, though, Paul’s vision of the polis in Romans 13 views the sword affirmatively and anticipates its use. The challenge for Christians in the Western world in 2024 is to develop the wisdom to wield it wisely.