In the year 2016 with not any land yet undiscovered and available for conquest from ‘barbarians’, Vitoria and Montesquieu’s theories and examples of just conquest are distant applications. However, the principles of their theories can still be applied to other aspects of war and ‘conquest’, for instance the on-going wars in the Middle East and the conflict between Russia and Crimea. Both Vitoria and Montesquieu’s original justifications were to be used in the case of the Spanish Conquest, but their reasons can be put into a neat list of rules that are applicable to modern warfare as well. Vitoria’s set of rules can be broken down to just a few just reasons: natural partnership and communication, spreading of the Christian religion, protection …show more content…
Both philosophers agree, despite their differences, that conquest can be justified by means of defensive war. Vitoria argues that natural partnership and the spreading of the Christian religion can benefit those who have been conquered, and that mutual alliances justify their reasons for conquest However, Montesquieu argues that those conquered can benefit by joining the victor state, rather than being forced into an alliance by force. In the case of the Spanish conquest of the Americas, Montesquieu and Vitoria both agree that the conquest can be justified, although they may disagree on what those reasons are. As a devout Catholic, Vitoria justifies the spread of the Catholic faith in the Americas as Christians having the right preach and announce the Gospel in the lands of the indigenous. With the spread of Christianity comes the protection of the converts. If the barbarians accept Christianity and convert to it, they gain protection from the victor state. Vitoria also deems the defense of the innocent against an anarchist leader as a just cause for the conquest. Since the barbarian leader commits crimes against humanity, the conquest is justified due to its defensive nature. By conquering these lands and the people within them, the victors prevent threats of harm against the innocent barbarians. Montesquieu also sees benefits that the indigenous people gain by being conquered; however, …show more content…
However, Montesquieu did not believe in taking away the indigenous religion and traditions already present in the country because he did not believe the people would benefit from forcing mores upon a nation. Although there were aspects of the conquest that Montesquieu pointed out as unjustly violent and went against human law, he also saw advantages and benefits that the conquered people gained by this conquest. Montesquieu’s belief that conquests are justified by the law of nature, points towards his theory that the preservation of the conquered land and its species is an advantage to both the victor and the indigenous. If the Spanish ruled the conquered land according to their own laws only exercising civil changes to the present society, their conquest would be most favorable in his eyes, because believes that the conquering nation may rid the indigenous of prejudices and oppression, but not enslave them physically and mentally to a new way of life. Although the Spaniards did enslave the indigenous people, Montesquieu justifies their enslavement because they were given liberty following. This was an act of repair on the Spanish’s part, which Montesquieu believes justifies their actions against the indigenous. As a realist, he understands that not every conquest will be done