Suchergebnisse

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.

Despite much progress over the last sixty years, the US Army has struggled to find and train its' personnel in a sufficient moral framework. In war time this struggle has been seen with the senseless abuse of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib. This is a grave concern for many including Christians. As a Christian and US Army Chaplain over the last fifteen years, I address this problem. Beginning with an exposition of controversial passages in the New Testament and the early church, an intellectual space will be created where the Christian faith and military service can function together. Just War Christian Discipleship, a certain way of appropriating the Augustinian view of Just War Tradition, presents and develops a Christian solution for proper response of the church faced with a nation considering, conducting, and ending a war. But this framework can also be used to help Christian US Army soldiers function in a one year deployment and combat mission. By combining the Just War (CD) framework with the seven virtues espoused by Thomas Aquinas and placing theses virtues as possible guides to practice the criteria of Just War (CD) within a year deployment and combat mission, the framework of Just War (CD) can be expanded to facilitate a better Christian witness.

A memo in which John Howard Yoder offers further reflection on the Just War tradition.

"September 2000." ; Not distributed to depository libraries in a physical form. ; "Published in cooperation with the Center for the Professional Military Ethic to enhance discussion of military professionalism within the Army and sister services"--P. iv. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 1 2

Working Paper 1:PR:18 for the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

Objectives: The paper aims to present a legal analysis of R2P in light of contemporary international law. It questions whether R2P is lawful as a just war (jus bellum justum) doctrine under international law, specifically, under the general prohibition for the use of force pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations. The paper first analyzes the just war doctrine in light of international law. Thereafter, it studies the legal framework for the use of force in the UN Charter. Thirdly, it studies R2P in legal light as a just war doctrine. Methodology: The research is executed through a deductive approach, its scientific objective is exploratory, and its research technique is a bibliographical and documentary survey. It finds its methodological limits in a legal approach of the subject from a normative perspective focused on the legal validity of the institute under international law. Results: The paper concludes that R2P has legal flaws and does not stand against UN Charter regulation on the usage of force, notably the norm that states that the use of force in international relations is an exclusive responsibility of the United Nations Security Council. Contributions: The study shows its pertinence as an endeavor into a strictly legal analysis of a complex and highly political subject of humanitarian interventions. The matter becomes even more relevant when it is considered that, contemporaneously, the debate on a potential humanitarian intervention in Latin America (in Venezuela, specifically) resurfaces the risk of the continent being overtaken by an international armed conflict.

Includes bibliographic references. ; Appel d'un protestant au pape -- Lettre de M. Urquhart -- Lettre de Constantinople -- Lettre de Rell a un catholique sujet du sultan -- Projets de décrets synodaux de Constantinople -- De re militari et bello -- Addition proposée au catéchisme de l'Orient. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Defence date: 5 April 2017 ; Examining Board: Professor Chris Reus-Smit, The University of Queensland, formerly EUI, (Supervisor); Professor Jennifer Welsh, EUI; Professor James Pattison, The University of Manchester; Professor Peter Sutch, Cardiff University ; This develops a defence of the principle of the moral equality of combatants against recent revisionist critiques. It does this by developing an interpretive and hermeneutical approach to the study of war and the just war tradition. This approach allows the meanings of war and of actions within war to be explored and it is on the basis of this understanding of meaning that the moral equality of combatants is defended. It shows that these meanings and distinctions cannot be recognized by the revisionists and that this is a moral and interpretive loss. The thesis develops the argument of Michael Walzer's Spheres of Justice and applies it to war; it demonstrates that war has a distinct meaning and that the principles for distributing identities, rights, and responsibilities in war are relative to this meaning. The thesis begins by exploring the history of the just war tradition and the evolution of the concept of combatancy and the distinction between combatants and non-combatants in order to demonstrate how the just war tradition constitutes war as an institution. It then explores the contemporary debate and argues that whilst the traditional defences of the principle of the moral equality of combatants have been found wanting, the conclusions of the revisionists need not be accepted. To demonstrate this, the following chapters study a number of examples that highlight important and meaningful contrasts associated with both the jus in bello and the jus ad bellum. The final chapter introduces the concept of the normative structure of war and argues that the right to participate and to kill in war depends upon a public relationship of duty between soldiers and the state. The reciprocal relationships of duty are the source of the moral equality of combatants.

In the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) normative perspective if a state is not capable or is unwilling to be responsible toward its citizens the responsibility to protect them should be borne by the international community which, under certain conditions, can carry out a military intervention in its domestic jurisdiction to address gross violations of human rights. The R2P principles for military intervention (right intention, last resort, proportionality etc.) are deliberately inspired by the Just War Theory. The paper problematizes the way the R2P uses just war theory. In the first place, it claims that the establishment of modern international relations around the principle of sovereignty matched with the rejection of the Just War doctrine. It argues that such a rejection cannot be reduced to a pure normative evolution – that a current normative change can overtake – but the incongruity between sovereignty and Just War was more substantial and still persists today. In this view, the stark dichotomy between responsibility and control (assumed by the R2P) should be questioned, since it neglects a more ambiguous relationship in which sovereignty has always implied a political responsibility. In the second place, the paper challenges the notion of individual sovereignty – on which the R2P is based on – to emphasise the pluralistic character at the origins of sovereignties. The pluralist character of sovereignty collides with the inescapable universalistic stance of the just war theory. Finally, building on these insights, the paper sheds some light on current limits and paradoxes of the R2P: the problematic reference to the just war theory concerning the problem of the 'right authority' principle and 'who should intervene'.

This paper aims at assessing the pacifist claim that the military licence to kill cannot be derived from the right to self-defense. Two clear-cut theories of self-defense, the causal theory and the strong moral theory, fuel two radically opposed conclusions. Indeed, the causal theory supports the classical Just War Doctrine (Walzer),while the strong moral theory supports pacifism. They are two extreme options among a complex set of possible theories of self-defense. I, nonetheless, defend the view that the strong moral theory does remain the most promising one. Whence it follows that, from the point of view of self-defense, pacifism is better established than the classical Just War Doctrine. This Doctrine may only be saved by endorsing rather some form of moral collectivism.

In this article we will analyse the main approaches to which the Putin doctrine refers. Russia presents itself to the international community as responsible for the sustainability of Russian civilisation and as leader of an opposition movement to Western civilisational imperialism. The EU is trying to diversify its international relations by developing new partnerships, in particular with China. However, the Russian military intervention alongside Bashar el Assad in Syria and the Ukrainian crisis largely undermine these efforts to build new alliances. While the new partnership with China is not called into question, its positioning as a pole of resistance to Western civilisational imperialism is at risk. The regained strength and opposition to the West's hegemonic claims are factors which largely explain President Putin's exceptional popularity. However, the Russian economy remains fragile and its modernisation is necessary to reduce its dependence on energy exports. However, this modernisation is expected to be difficult due to its new isolation from European dynamics. V. Putin will it be able to maintain its level of popularity despite a difficult economic situation? ; International audience In this article we will analyze the main approaches to which the Putin doctrine belongs. Russia presents itself to the international community as responsible for the protection and development of Russian civilization and as leader of a movement opposed to Western civilizational imperialism. Russia is trying to diversify its international relations by developing new partnerships, particularly with China. However, Russian military intervention alongside Bashar al-Assad in Syria and the Ukrainian crisis have largely undermined these efforts to build new alliances. If the new partnership with China is not challenged, on the other hand, its positioning as a pole of resistance to Western civilizational imperialism is compromised. The regained power and the opposition to the hegemonic policies of the West are factors that largely ...

In this anthology, students from the U.S. Army War College Class of 2008 critically examine the emerging 21st century security environment and offer diverse and innovative thoughts on how military power should be applied in situations short of general war. ; "Anthology of student research papers from the U.S. Army War College Class of 2008"--Cover. ; "April 2010." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Summary -- Introduction / Harry R. Yarger -- Legitimacy in the conduct of military operations / Jonathan P. Wilcox -- Al-Qaeda, the revolution in military affairs and the future of warfare / Thomas C. Graves -- Africa Command and the militarization of U.S. foreign policy / Dennis R. Penn -- Strategic bridge towards community building : the military's role / Lorelei E. W. Coplen -- Defining criteria for handover to civilian officials in relief operations / John Bessler -- Economic and reconstruction considerations in a failed state / Roger H. Westermeyer -- The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe : a case study for a return to multilateralism / Gary D. Espinas -- Redefining security cooperations : new limits on phase zero and "shaping" / Thomas M. Rhatican -- Know before you go : improving army officer sociocultural knowledge / James C. Laughrey -- El Salvador, Iraq, and strategic considerations for counterinsurgency / James F. Glynn -- The use of security professionals in counterinsurgency operations / Marco E. Harris -- Influencing the forgotten half of the population in counterinsurgency operations / Laura C. Loftus -- The British approach to counterinsurgency : myths, realities, and strategic challenges / I. A. Rigden -- Finding an exit : delineating battle handoff in phase IV / Roger S. Marin -- Transitioning from war to enduring peace / Michael E. Culpepper -- Stability operations and government : an inherently military function / Russell R. Hula. ; In this anthology, students from the U.S. Army War College Class of 2008 critically examine the emerging 21st century security environment and offer diverse and innovative thoughts on how military power should be applied in situations short of general war. ; Mode of access: Internet.

One of the defining characteristics of strategy making in the Bush administration was the treatment of any decision involving transnational terrorism as a crisis with a limited slate of participants and a minimal role for professional expertise except on operational and technical considerations. When the administration broke from its predecessors and chose to approach the Iraq issue as part of the war on terrorism rather than as simply an element of regional stability, it shifted to a crisis decision mode. This was unusual since the Iraq conflict did not meet the usual requirements for a crisis: a very high threat and limited decision time. This initial volume provides a review of decisions made by senior military and civilian leaders during the several years thus far of the war in Iraq, and focuses on the how and why certain decisions were made. ; "February 2010." ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 54-67). ; Introduction -- Decisionmakers -- Defining the issue -- Decision shapers -- Political and strategic context -- An iterative decision -- Facts -- Assumptions -- Options -- The decisionmaking process -- Analysis and conclusions. ; One of the defining characteristics of strategy making in the Bush administration was the treatment of any decision involving transnational terrorism as a crisis with a limited slate of participants and a minimal role for professional expertise except on operational and technical considerations. When the administration broke from its predecessors and chose to approach the Iraq issue as part of the war on terrorism rather than as simply an element of regional stability, it shifted to a crisis decision mode. This was unusual since the Iraq conflict did not meet the usual requirements for a crisis: a very high threat and limited decision time. This initial volume provides a review of decisions made by senior military and civilian leaders during the several years thus far of the war in Iraq, and focuses on the how and why certain decisions were made. ; Mode of access: Internet.