Locke and Just/Unjust Wars

Locke’s treatise is well written and easy to understand. However, some of his points seem to contradict each other. When discussing slavery, Locke writes, “But there is another sort of servants, which by a peculiar name we call slaves, who being captives taken in a just war, are by the right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters” (45). This is compared to Locke’s discussion on conquest where Locke says, “That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man’s right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered” (91). The point at issue between these two passages is determining what constitutes just and unjust wars. From my reading of Locke, I never picked up on a specific definition for either. Admittedly, this could be because of details that I may have missed. But, until told otherwise, I am forced to assume that the difference between a just and unjust war is purely subjective, and may result in individuals becoming slaves when, according to Locke, they should not be.