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.

"Legal history regarded as a whole is a history of institutions as well as of doctrines, and it cannot be complete until the influence of each of these two factors in producing the common product is shown in its due proportion. Law can act upon practical affairs only through institutions, and these two sides are…

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.

This article traces the increasing pressures exerted upon interna-tional law and international institutions from two sources: the humanitarian military interventions (and failures to intervene) in the aftermath of the Cold War during the decade of the 1990s; and the ―global war on terror‖ and wars of counterinsurgency and regime change fought during the first decade of the 21st century. Proposals for legal and institutional reform in response to these challenges emerge from two distinct and largely indepen-dent sources: a ―publicist‖ or theoretical discussion among scholars in philosophy, law, and international relations; and a formal or procedural discussion among diplomats and statesmen, both focusing upon what the latter group defines as a ―responsibility to protect‖ (R2P). This study con-cludes with recommendations for reform of international humanitarian law (or Law of Armed Conflict), and for reformulations of professional ethics and professional military education in allied militaries, both of which will be required to fully address the new challenges of ―irregular‖ or hybrid war. ; Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Nuremberg, Germany, November 20, 1945 -- Just war doctrine and General Order No. 100 -- The doctrinal development of the American military profession -- Command responsibility and the meaning of Nuremberg -- The American military ethic in the early Cold War -- Command responsibility and the My Lai Massacre -- The 1977 Geneva Protocol I and post-Vietnam military doctrine -- Drinking from the poisoned chalice

"Bringing just war doctrine to life, Richard J. Regan raises a host of difficult questions about the evils of war, asking first and foremost whether war is ever justified, and, if so, for what purposes? Regan considers the basic principles of just war theory and applies those principles to historical and ongoing conflicts through case studies and discussion questions. His well-received 1996 work is updated with the addition of case studies on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Islamist terrorist organizations. Especially timely are the added discussions of the use of drones to assassinate terrorist leaders and, in the matter of weapons of mass destruction, asking how certain is "certain enough" that a country has weapons of mass destruction before it can be justly attacked? Regan considers the roles of the president, Congress, and the U.N. Security Council in determining when long-term U.S. military involvement is justified."--Publisher's description

Introduction: The just war myth and the politics of war -- The myths and memes of political life -- Genealogy of the just war tradition -- Duels and modern wars -- The myth of American exceptionalism -- The preemptive war doctrine -- Torture and terrorism -- Humanitarian intervention and the crusade for democracy -- Jus in bello and the war in Iraq -- The myth of pacifism -- Citizenship, responsibility, and peace

The basis of this collection of essays is the reading of a common topic from different perspectives. The contributors compare and contrast not only positions, but also methods of learning. They examine theories of just war in diverse cultural contexts and their disciplinary settings