THE CLASSICAL CONFUCIAN POSITION ON THE LEGITIMATE USE OF MILITARY FORCE Sumner B. Twiss and Jonathan Chan ABSTRACT Focusing on the thought of Mencius and Xunzi, this essay reconstructs and examines the classical Confucian position on the legitimate use of military force. It begins by sketching historically important political concepts, such as types of political leaders, politics of the kingly way versus politics of the hegemonic way, and the controversial role of lords-protector. It then moves on to explore Confucian criteria for justifying resort to the use of force, giving special attention to undertaking punitive expeditions to interdict and punish aggression and tyranny. Following this discussion, the essay then attends to important Confucian moral constraints on how military force is properly employed, including prohibitions on attacking the defenseless, indiscrimi- nate slaughter of enemy forces, destruction of civilian infrastructure, pris- oner abuse, and non-consensual annexation of territory. The essay concludes by first discussing an illustrative case from Mencius and then comparing its reconstruction of the Confucian position to those offered by other scholars. KEY WORDS: Mencius, Xunzi, true king, lord-protector, punitive expedition, righteous or just war, just cause, right authority, moral constraints on military conduct THIS ESSAYATTEMPTS TO DELINEATE the classical Confucian under- standing of the legitimate use of military force by focusing on the thought of Mencius and Xunzi. Since these two figures are reasonably similar in their views, they will be examined together as articulating a unified position, though occasional differing nuances will be noted. 1 This strategy is pursued largely for reasons of economy and to minimize needless Sumner B. Twiss is Distinguished Professor of Human Rights, Ethics, and Religion, involv- ing a joint appointment between the Department of Religion and the Center for the Advancement of Human Rights at Florida State University. Prior to joining the FSU faculty in 2001, he was Professor of Religious Studies at Brown University, where he is now Professor Emeritus. Sumner B. Twiss, Religion Department, Florida State University, Dodd Hall M05, Tallahassee, FL 32306, stwiss@admin.fsu.edu Jonathan Chan is Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy Department and Associate Director of the Centre for Applied Ethics at Hong Kong Baptist University, 224 Waterloo Road, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, klchan@hkbu.edu.hk 1 The main differences between Mencius and Xunzi concern metaphysical and metaethi- cal issues. At the normative level, however, they share virtually all the same Confucian moral categories and ethical principles, a fact that is particularly evident with respect to the topic of this essay. JRE 40.3:447–472. © 2012 Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc.