Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction -- Francis I and the Just War Doctrine -- War in the Old Testament -- Deuteronomy -- Holy Wars not Just Wars -- When Men Wage Just War -- Hebrew Wars and God's Intentions -- War and Legal Authority -- Wartime Atrocities -- Canon Lawyers -- Gratian -- Saint Raymond of Peñafort -- St. Augustine: Father of the Just War Doctrine -- Just War in the Early Middle Ages -- Innocent I -- Urban II -- Bernard of Clairvaux -- John of Salisbury -- Thomas Á Becket -- Bologna School of Jurisprudence -- Innocent III -- Bartolus de Saxoferrato -- John of Legnano -- Pierino Belli -- Saint Thomas Aquinas -- St. Thomas and St. Augustine -- Jus ad Bellum -- Jus in Bello -- Legacy -- Later Medieval Philosophers -- Marsilius of Padua -- Alberico Gentili -- Conclusion -- Vitoria and International Law -- Spanish Just War Thinking of the 16th Century -- Francisco Suarez -- Domingo de Soto -- Luis de Molina -- Balthasar de Ayala -- Gregory de Valentia -- Juan de Mariana -- Saint Robert Bellarmine -- Alphonsus Liguori -- In Conclusion -- What Is Just War Doctrine -- The New Theory of Warfare -- Catholic Revisionism -- References -- About the Authors -- Index -- Blank Page.

A WIDELY HELD ASSUMPTION IS THAT INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE DEVOTED TO THE EFFORT TO PREVENT WAR, AND DERIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT FROM THE HOPE THAT THEY WILL SUCCEED. THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS, RATHER, THAT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN USED LESS FOR PREVENTING WAR THAN FOR CHARACTERIZING IT. THE ROLE OF THE UN AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING THE 'JUST WAR' DOCTRINE IS DESCRIBED.

In this article we adopt the framework of Just War doctrine to assess whether the 2003 invasion of Iraq was just. The six criteria against which we assess the justice of going to war are Just Cause, Right Authority, Right Intention, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Proportionate Cause and War as Last Resort. We focus upon what was known and said by the US, British and Australian governments around the time they decided to invade and consider whether there was sufficient justification and authorisation for the Iraq War. The key pre-war issues discussed include alleged Iraqi possession of WMD and links to terrorist organisations, and the meaning of UN Security Council resolutions. We conclude that, as the Just War criteria were not satisfied, the invasion of Iraq was unjust.

In this article we adopt the framework of Just War doctrine to assess whether the 2003 invasion of Iraq was just. The six criteria against which we assess the justice of going to war are Just Cause, Right Authority, Right Intention, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Proportionate Cause and War as Last Resort. We focus upon what was known and said by the US, British and Australian governments around the time they decided to invade and consider whether there was sufficient justification and authorisation for the Iraq War. The key pre-war issues discussed include alleged Iraqi possession of WMD and links to terrorist organisations, and the meaning of UN Security Council resolutions. We conclude that, as the Just War criteria were not satisfied, the invasion of Iraq was unjust.

The applicability of traditional just war theory with contemporary states' struggles against terrorism is investigated. Overviews of traditional just war theory & of terrorism are provided, emphasizing the conditions under which the use of military force is permissible & the distinction between military force & terrorist actions; in addition, the extent to which just war theory has changed throughout the 20th century is discussed. Thomas Aquinas's criteria for rendering war morally permissible (eg, proper authority, just cause, & right intention) as articulated in his Summa Theologiae are then reviewed to illustrate how contemporary just war theory has incorporated or modified these conditions. Attention is then dedicated to determining whether states possess legitimate authority to respond to terrorism, whether responses to terrorist actions constitute just causes, & whether states are capable of employing right intent to answer terrorist activities. Even though states are morally obligated to protect the everyday lives of their citizens, it is concluded that struggles against terrorism also possess moral duties to achieve peace between warring parties. J. W. Parker