Abstract
This paper explains the concept of a just war and examines the theoretical aspect and historical aspect of the just war theory. 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."

Tags:enemies, differ, religious, beliefs, race, language, conventions, common, ground, mutual, understanding

Abstract
The paper discusses how from the dawn of man, individuals have been involved in human drama and conflict. The paper looks at how the just war theory makes a plausible argument for the use of force and war when self-defense is the goal. The paper considers how some may argue that violence and war can never be just and is barbaric, however, sometimes war is a necessary evil to protect innocent citizens of a nation from future harm.

From the Paper
"From the dawn of man, individuals have been involved in human drama and conflict. The just war theory makes a plausible argument for the use of force and war when self-defense is the goal. Some may argue that violence and war can never be just and is barbaric, however, sometimes war is a..."

Tags:just, war, theory

Abstract
In this paper, it is argued that throughout history and in present day, the criteria of just war theory, 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 war theory in an objective manner. Because just war theory 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?"

Tags:affairs, diplomacy, human, international, just, law, relations, rights, theory, war

Abstract
This paper begins with an outline of what Just War theory is. It continues on from there to outline the various facets of Just War theory as it relates to the middle east. Focusing largely on Iraq and Afghanistan, the paper argues that the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan may be unjust or hard to win, but they are not the same thing. It concludes by noting various changes since the wars began.

From the Paper
"Even the most vociferous critics of both wars concede that there have been notable successes. Human rights have improved in Iraq--the minority ethnic group of the Kurds no longer lives in fear of their lives. While Osama Bin Laden remains at large, prominent terrorists from his group have been apprehended and brought to justice, and there have been no comparable attacks upon U.S. soil since 2001. Moreover, invading Iraq has been a way to "break out of the impasse of the dual containment of Iraq and Iran pursued by the Clinton administration. By establishing a pro-American government in Baghdad, the United States would gain leverage against Tehran" (Zelleke & Dujarric 2008)."

Tags:irag, afghanistan, war, global conflicts, middle east

Abstract
This paper provides a basic outline of just war theory, drawing from Michael Walzer's book "Just and Unjust Wars" and Brian Orend's book "The Morality of War". Just war theory 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."

Tags:aggression, international, warfare, unjust, justified, crimes, terrorism, terrorist, regime, violence, policy, territory, territoriality, threat, moral, ethical, ethics, arms

Abstract
This paper examines the just war theory and its most popular proponent, St. Thomas Aquinas. The paper discusses the moral reasons behind warfare and offers insight into how modern political theory goes further to define what constitutes a just war. The paper also examines the problems behind this theory and uses modern wars in history to analyze the practical applications of this theory.

From the Paper
"The just war theory attempts to address these issues by explaining the moral reasons behind warfare. The most famous advocate for this theory was St. Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologicae he argues not only that war can be justified, but that the normal rules of morality do not apply. Aquinas believed that everything around us must have a "formal cause"; because God had given man the gift of reason there could be a reasonable and just explanation for war (Gaardner 181). Later theorists and philosophers, Kant in particular, argued that if an action was performed out of good will it determines the moral righteousness of an action (Gaardner 336). Therefore, if a country goes to war with another to address some great wrong then the war is morally just."

Tags:warfare, friedrich hegel, morality, nuclear weapons, politics government, st thomas aquinas

Abstract
This paper explores the concept of war from the point of view of the just war theory. 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 War theory 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."

Tags:military, conflict, morality

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."

Tags:augustine, religion, terrorism, saddam, hussein

Abstract
The paper relates that the Christian Church has attempted over the centuries to present a theory that allows for Christian states and citizens to engage in war. This paper reviews the context of war for the Christian and then presents the Just War Theories precepts describing them as a framework for ethically engaging in war. The paper reviews those precepts that ethically allow a state to declare war and then those which ethically determine how one carries war out.

Tags:war, just, christian

Abstract
The paper discusses how for centuries, Christian theologians have debated what moral criteria can be applied in order to determine whether a war is justified, and have generally established that a war is just if it is fought in defense of the innocent and to uphold Christian principles. The paper explains that the moral obligation to uphold justice by punishing individuals in society who are guilty of transgressions against the innocent extends as well to nations guilty of transgressions against the innocent, and sanctions punishment in the form of waging a just war against them.

From the Paper
"For centuries, Christian theologians have debated what moral criteria can be applied in order to determine whether a war is justified, and have generally established that a war is just if it is fought in defense of the innocent and to uphold Christian principles. Ultimately, the moral obligation to uphold justice by punishing individuals in society who are guilty of transgressions against the innocent extends as well to nations guilty of..."

Tags:just, war, theological