Suchergebnisse

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.

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