This paper argues that just wartheory, and the international law which is based upon it, are inherently flawed and lead powerful states justifying violent actions.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 12 sources, 2001, $ 80.95
Abstract In this paper, it is argued that throughout history and in present day, the criteria of just wartheory, and the international law which is based upon, have been applied only subjectively toward the fulfillment of national and self-interest, and that the plurality of human culture and the nature of war itself make it impossible to ever apply the criteria of just wartheory in an objective manner. Because just wartheory can never succeed in its goals of objectively determining when a state can justly go to war or how a war can be morally waged, it serves only as justification for the actions taken by states powerful enough to fulfill their national interest through violent conflict.
From the paper:
"?This semester, I had the opportunity to participate in a seminar on the foreign policy of the Clinton administration taught by Leon Fuerth, the national security advisor to former Vice-President Al Gore. As a member of the national security council, Fuerth provided an inside look at how American foreign policy was formulated over the last eight years. During one session, Fuerth discussed the process of deciding what objects to target during the Kosovo air campaign. He related that "the lawyers" advised the administration that it could not legally bomb the power grids of Serbian cities because it may lead to civilian injury. However, Fuerth recalled, they found no legal quandary with deploying a massive invasion force in Serbian territory or the civilian casualties that could result from such an invasion. Fuerth asked the class, almost rhetorically, which option was more moral?"
Abstract This paper provides a basic outline of just wartheory, drawing from Michael Walzer's book "Just and Unjust Wars" and Brian Orend's book "The Morality of War". Just wartheory is used to determine whether or not a war is indeed justifiable. In simplest terms, a war is just if one country imposes moral and physical aggression on another country. The paper uses this theory to examine particular examples from contemporary history, such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the war on Iraq and terrorism. In conclusion, the paper maintains that determining whether a war is just or unjust remains complex and controversial.
From the Paper "Just war theory begins with a theory of aggression and a consideration of the limits of aggression. Such an approach is not surprising to most people today as it might have been in the past. After the War in Vietnam, the issue of the just war has been much argued as political leaders and the press consider every potential military action and whether or not it can be justified as an ethical and moral decision. War as a defensive measure is more clearly an ethical action, for instance, while any sort of pre-emptive war has to be justified. The current war in Iraq was justified by the Bush administration as a pre-emptive act to defend against purported nuclear weapons (or weapons of mass destruction, as they were called), and such a defensive act would make this a just war. The fact that no such weapons were found after the fact raised numerous questions about the justness of the war, questions which the administration continues to gloss over while trying to justify the war on the basis of crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, or because of supposed terrorist ties, or for whatever reason works best. Orend would not accept such shifting territory as a real justification, and certainly Michael Walzer, the best known theorist on the subject, also would not."
Abstract This paper explores the concept of war from the point of view of the just wartheory. The paper explains that in order to better understand war, one must look at the concept from all angles including the point of view of peace movements. The paper questions what the Just Wartheory is and what its principles are; what the theory represents and who believes in it. By answering such questions, the paper estimates that one can better understand the state of the war's current conflicts that are resulting in death and destruction. More specifically, this paper examines the current war in Iraq and discusses the question: is the war in Iraq justified? The paper presents sources that attest to both sides of the issue in the hope of finding that the war is not justified at this moment.
From the Paper "The Just War Theory is most the popular view of war among Christians. The just war approach is based "upon the moral theory known as natural law morality" (Hill 2). What natural law morality refers to is that all people know that certain kinds of behavior are immoral, irrespective of their own religious loyalties. This includes all major world religions such as: Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism and Christianity. This means that all these world religions agree murder, theft and dishonesty are immoral. This concept applied not only in society but also across cultures. A good example of how the natural law morality works within society is the Nazi war criminals were tried and convicted because of their crimes against humanity as a result of the immoral aspects of their conduct. Within the just war theory exist elements which must be obeyed and they are as follows: (1) Declaration by a lawful government, (2) Just cause, (3) Just intent, (4) Last resort and (5) Immunity of non-combatants."
Abstract This paper explains the concept of a just war and examines the theoretical aspect and historical aspect of the just wartheory. The paper explains that the theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying the engagement of war as well as the forms of warfare and that the historical aspect is concerned with the historical body of rules or mutual agreements existing in various wars across the ages. The paper also explains that the idea of a just war has historical precedent and can be seen as far back as biblical times and extends down through the Middle Ages and the time of Shakespeare.
From the Paper "The idea of a "just war" is a conundrum. How can one group of people consider their actions "right" or "just" to apply military force against a another group. When can one group's actions, which will create devastation, economic difficulty, and death to thousands of people, be considered "right"? In a civilized society, the concept of a "just war" has become the centerpiece of many discussions, and has acted as a gate keeper, restraining hawkish tendencies of nations who pride themselves in freedom, and individual liberty. In order for a nation to engage in an activity which creates harm for another group, there must be a justifiable reason."
Abstract This essay discusses how the Just Wartheory applies to the present war against terrorism. Its seven criteria apply to the just war against terrorism.
Abstract This paper looks into the Just WarTheory of St. Augustine, and determines whether the war against drugs is war that is just and fair, or one that should be given up. The author argues that the war on drugs is something that can never be fully eradicated and rather one that can only cause for the reduction of drug use. Included are statistics as supporting evidence.
From the Paper "The war against drugs in the United States is one that has been fought for many years, and seems to have no end. Its "soldiers" always seem to come upon new enemies, which there are already countless numbers of to begin with. Many proponents of the war against drugs point to the facts that drug use has declined over the years, and the numerous amounts of arrests and drug busts that are made. While those proponents support the governments quest in the elimination of drug trafficking, there are also those who disagree.The opponents say that there is no end in sight, that the drugs will continue to be produced no matter what, these people desire the profit from the occupation, and will do anything to get it. Chances are, neither of the majorities of either of these groups have looked into whether this war against drugs is a just one, and should continue, or end. Which leaves the question, should we as Christian's be supporting this war, or would it be wrong and immoral to do so. This knowledge can only be obtained by looking into the just war theory, and making a decision from there. "
Abstract This paper presents a detailed examination of the Vietnam War and its comparison to several social theories. Using the war as a measuring stick, theories are examined and held against the war to see how the war could be applied to each theory. The writer explains a short history of each theory and then examines how the war holds up using that particular theory.
Introduction
Hegemonic Stability Theory Just WarTheory New WarTheory Pluralism
Realism
Conclusion
From the Paper "This theory is perhaps the most applicable war theory to the Viet Nam war. It was funded in part by United States tax dollars. It utilized foreign help with the help of the United States military assistance. It hurt international humanitarian aid when the stories began to surface about the horrors the troops were sometimes ordered to visit upon the opposition during the war, and it used forced population expulsion when entire villages on both sides were routinely burned and destroyed, thereby displacing the village inhabitants."
Tags: military, just, war, new, pluralism, realism, hegemonic, stability
Abstract The paper explains that the just wartheory is based on the ideal that war should be "restrained, made more humane and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice." The paper discusses how in order for a war to be considered "just," it must fit a set of predefined criteria. The paper discusses President Bush's declaration of war against terrorism, the Vietnam war and the American Civil War. The paper reveals that the difficulty with forming a "just war" is that there is no person capable of applying the criteria; which person can impose a definition of harm versus good?
From the Paper "While humanizing war efforts is effective in minimizing cost, trade damage, and loss of life, it also has another significant advantage: by agreeing upon certain conventions for war, the two enemies have established that the war is between two rational parties that, despite their irresolvable conflict or conflicts, understand that war is an ends to a means and not a trend to be set and never revoked. "It is only when the enemy is seen to be a people with whom one will do business in the following peace that tacit or explicit rules are formed for how wars should be fought and who they should involve." "
Tags: conventions, conflict, peace, justice, subjectivity, harm, good
Abstract This paper briefly discusses the moral and ethical aspects of a "just war" by focusing on Alex Moseley's "Just WarTheory". It looks at the concept of war from a religious point of view and discusses whether any war could truly be justified.
From the Paper "Saint Thomas Aquinas was another important person who supported the developed the concept of "just war" wherein religious sanction was accorded under certain conditions. Saint Thomas declared that, "those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.". [John Raymond] He proposed three conditions namely "just cause", "authorized authority" and "rightful intention" as prerequisites for approving a war. According to him, the ruler of a nation has the authority to declare war against any other nation to restore peace and protect his own nation from an internal chaos or impending danger. St Thomas explains that the divine doctrine "he who takes the sword will perish by it" is not applicable in the case of war because the use of sword is approved by the authority to defend the national integrity. He further justified his "just war" theory but pointing out to the biblical injunction "do not resist evil". Another important aspect stressed by St. Thomas is the prevalence of the common good over individual moral considerations. That is he seems to approve of two different moral codes at the individual and collective level. [John Raymond]"
Abstract This paper examines the ethical issues of just war as they relate to the US-Iraq war and of gun control. The two cases illustrate the ethical dilemmas that underlie seemingly simple issues.
Abstract The paper examines the Korean War through the lens of three of the major paradigms in international relations: realism, world society and theory of dependence. The paper shows how no one paradigm of international relations exactly fits all aspects of the Korean conflict. The paper explains how we must therefore consider a convergence of paradigms to fully understand this war.
Outline:
Introduction
The Primary Paradigms
The Korean War: A Realist Analysis
The Korean War: A Dependency Theory Analysis
The Korean War: World Society Theory Analysis
From the Paper "There exist a number of different paradigms to explain the events of the Korean War. The theoretical model of Realism has long been one of dominant theories of international relations, although as a formal school of thought it has only existed since the Second World War. The primary assumptions of this theoretical model is that the global political system is fundamentally anarchic in that nation-states are effectively sovereign with no check on their actions other than from other nation-states. The relations between these states is predicated on their differential power levels - state power being understood in military and economic terms - with each state pursuing its own national security and other interests."
Abstract This paper begins by noting that war is not just a topic discussed simply in history textbooks but also a subject of philosophers. The paper then examines the positions of many philosophers, which serve as guidelines for the making of war. The paper discusses the theory, which President Bush used to go to war in Iraq, and to which the author is opposed. The author concludes that, today, the question arises as to what philosophy of war, if any, should be internationally adopted and for what reasons it should be followed, as a justifiable war may not be universal for all nations.
Table of Content:
Just WarTheory Just Ad Bellum & Jus In Bello
Realism
Pacifism
Justified Short-Of-War Force?
Judgement
From the Paper "There are many views that disagree with the Bush Doctrine. Primarily, it is a clear violation of international law. As stated previously, only the United Nations has the right to approve a state of war (The United Nations). Anup Shah writes within his article the many controversies surrounded with the Bush Doctrine. One major problem Shah notes is the disability of international peace when the United States when it withdrew from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. This coincided the same time when the Bush Doctrine was released."
Tags: guidelines, ethical, aggression, realists, bush
Abstract This paper discusses Samuel Huntington's theory about the clash of civilizations, which postulates that the bloodiest conflicts in this century would take place between Islamic and Western civilizations. It further examines how the clash theory holds that the post-Cold War world will be increasingly polarized between Islamic and Western civilizations and societies and how, as a result, many view 9/11 as the initial confirmation of Huntington's thesis. The paper also looks at how there is a section of the academic community that has opposed the clash theory from the start and continues to attack it as having proceeded on the wrong premise. The paper assesses the rationale and validity of Huntington's thesis and evaluates the logic of the arguments lined up by critics against it.
Outline:
Abstract
Clash Theory Fault Line Wars Research & Analysis Methods
Opposing Views
From the Paper "In a response, Edward Said (2001) dismisses Huntington's thesis as baseless and misinformed in his own essay in The Nation titled "The Clash of Ignorance." Said argues that Huntington's categorization of the world's fixed "civilizations" omits the dynamic interdependency and interaction of culture and that his ideas are based not on harmony but on the clash or conflict between worlds. The theory that each world is "self-enclosed" is applied to the world map, to the structure of civilizations, to the notion that each race has a special destiny and psychology. According to Said, it is an example of an imagined geography where the presentation of the world in a certain way legitimates certain politics. Short of calling Huntington a warmonger, Said says the clash theory is interventionist and aggressive since it is aimed at maintaining a wartime status in the minds of the Americans. Thus, it continues to expand the Cold War by other means rather than advancing ideas that might help us understand the current scene towards reconciling the two cultures. "
Abstract This paper examines how conflicts and wars have been part of the human civilization since time immemorial and how, throughout the different eons of history, we have accounts of the destructive effects of wars, irrespective of the cause for which they were fought. It discusses how wars are very much a part of the political system of the world and how every religion in the world has had its own maxims and directives used as the standard for either supporting or disapproving of a war. It looks at how, from the Christian perspective, St. Augustine's ?Just cause theory? is the principle doctrine used for justifying a war. It discusses the philosophy of the ?just war? and ascertains whether or not it was followed in the U.S. war with Iraq.
Outline
Introduction
War and Humanity
Just War Doctrine
War and Ethical Reasoning
Terrorism and Just War War with Iraq (Preemptive Strike)
Preemptive Attack and Consequences
Conclusion
From the Paper "Given that wars imply destruction on a large scale and the loss of divinely ordained human life we are faced with the dilemma as to weather or not it is ethical to support it under any circumstances. Certainly we must strive towards peaceful means of settling issues and must avoid war at any cost. Wars that have the motive of national fame, territorial gains and purposes of a non-defensive nature are clearly a breach of ethical and moral code of conduct and should be properly regarded as unjustifiable. But under certain conditions when war is forced upon a nation it stands ethically and morally responsible to defend its people from the onslaught of the attackers."
Abstract This paper discusses the theories of justified war based on an examination of Thucydides ""History of the Peloponnesian War" in an effort to illuminate issues in connection with current international politics. It places the text in historical context.
From the Paper "This research examines three passages from Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War"
that illuminate political theories of war and that may help illuminate issue fronts in connection with contemporary international politics. The research will set the ..."
