Suchergebnisse

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

President Kennedy has it within his power to end the Cold War. Two equally dramatic and effective paths are open to him to accomplish this purpose. He can end the Cold War by capitulating to Communist demands in Berlin, in Laos and in the disarmament dialogue, or he can end it by starting a hot war.As long as Mr. Kennedy and the American people regard these alternatives as morally wrong and politically unwise, which I hope will be a long time, we will have to adjust to the perils and pitfalls of a notso- peaceful-coexistence. In this protracted conflict involving nuclear weapons (in being), unconventional warfare, diplomatic negotiations, trade, ideas and loyalties—in this novel twilight zone between war and peace—has the traditional doctrine of the just war any relevance? I believe it has. attempt to support the thesis that the traditional doctrine is relevant in principle to the nuclear-missile age, first by suggesting six necessary elements present in all moral-political decisions and then by sketching a brief outline for a "responsible" just war theory.

Auf der Basis der europäischen Tradition einer Lehre vom Gerechten Krieg, unter Einbeziehung von Elementen der aktuellen Völkerrechts-Entwicklung bei den Vereinten Nationen, fragt der Verfasser nach Rechtmäßigkeit u.a. "nationaler Befreiungskriege", gewaltsamer Durchsetzung des Selbstbestimmungsrechts der Völker und von Rebellionen. Die Probleme werden auf Positionen der Regierung Südafrikas und des ANC angewandt; beide "behaupten, einen gerechten Krieg zu führen" (geschrieben vor Suspendierung des bewaffneten Kampfes durch den ANC 1990). Verweise auf UN-Dokumente, Zusatzprotokolle der Rotkreuz-Konventionen, wissenschaftliche Sekundärliteratur, politische Publizistik. (APAF-Ans)

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