This book offers a collection of critical engagements with the key tenets of just war theory, to evaluate its theoretical and practical credibility. Readers will be furnished with a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of the theory's various elements in order to identify what might be salvaged and what might need revision
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
Policy transfer analysis seeks to make sense of the cross-cultural transfer of knowledge about institutions, policies or delivery systems in an era of globalization. The purpose of this volume is to evaluate how useful policy transfer analysis is as a descriptive, explanatory and prescriptive theory of policy change. It provides both a response to its critics and it presents a variety of new directions for studying processes of policy transfer. The chapters proceed from an underlying assumption about the field of enquiry; that policy transfer analysis alone cannot provide a general explanatory
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Principled pluralism? A constructive account of "thin universalism" / James Beard -- Justice and judgment without hindsight : the failed justification of the Iraq War / Christine Stender -- Aristotle, the Army, and Abu Ghraib : torture and the limits of military virtue ethics / J. Joseph Miller -- When the guns fall silent : towards an adequate theory of Jus post bellum / Mark Evans and Christine Stender -- The "failed" state : morality, ideology and global responsibilities / Mark Evans -- When reason sleeps : liberal citizenship in an age of terror / Nazeer Patel -- Long Kesh prison resistance : its influence on the Irish peace process / Claire Delisle
In recent times, 'just war' discourse has become unfortunately associated, in the minds of some, with the idea of the forcible promotion or imposition of democracy as a legitimate just cause. It would thus be understandable if supporters of just war theory were to disavow any particular linkage of its tenets with the democratic ideal. However, while certainly not endorsing the stated cause, this article contends that the theory in its most plausible and attractive form does exhibit certain biases towards the ideal, in both jus ad bellum and jus post bellum. If these biases fall short of shackling the theory to claims such as 'only democracies can fight just wars', they may nevertheless place taxing justificatory burdens on a non-democracy's claim to have a war-waging right and on non-democratic conceptions of the just peace that should ideally follow a just war.