Suchergebnisse

In a world that continues to be riven by armed conflict, the fundamental moral and political questions raised by warfare are as important as ever. Under what circumstances are we justified in going to war? Can conflicts be waged in a 'moral' way? Is war an inevitable feature of a world driven by power politics? What are the new ethical challenges raised by new weapons and technology, from drones to swarming attack robots? This book is an engaging and up-to-date examination of these questions and more, penned by a foremost expert in the field. Using many historical cases, it examines all the core disputes and doctrines, ranging from realism to pacifism, from just war theory and international law, to feminism and the democratic peace thesis. Its scope stretches from the primordial causes and perennial drivers of war to the cyber-centric space-age future of armed conflict in the 21st century.

Introduction 1. - Part One: Just War Theory and International Law. - 1 A Sweeping History of Just War Theory 9. - 2 Jus ad Bellum #1: Resisting Aggression 33. - 3 Jus ad Bellum #2: Non-Classical Wars 71. - 4 Jus in Bello #1: Just Conduct in War 111. - 5 Jus in Bello #2: Supreme Emergency and Cyber-Warfare 153. - 6 Jus post Bellum #1: Overlapping Consensus, and Retribution 185. - 7 Jus post Bellum #2: Rehabilitation, and Wars-Without-End 215. - Part Two: The Alternatives. - 8 Evaluating the Realist Alternative 251. - 9 Evaluating the Pacifist Alternative 273. - Conclusion 297. - Appendix A: Sources on the Laws of Armed Conflict 299. - Appendix B: Conceptual Diagrams of Just War Theory 301

"Brian Orend explores the ethics of war and peace from a Kantian perspective, emphasizing human rights protection, the rule of international law and a fully global concept of justice. Contending that Kant's just war doctrine has not been given its due, Orend displays Kant's theory to its fullest, impressive effect. He then completely and clearly updates Kant's perspective for application to our time."--Jacket.

In this article, I argue in favor of an entirely new Geneva Convention that will be exclusively centered on the vital problems that follow the end of wars. There are numerous international laws that frame the beginning of war and the way wars are fought. In addition, several of these laws assume a strategic significance and a moral sense. In order to complete our analysis of the numerous impacts of war on international life, we therefore need to consider the end phase of war. The objective of this article is to construct a general theory of the plausible principles that could guide communities that seek to justly and decently resolve their armed conflicts. We can turn to two important and contrasting models of justice after war: revenge and reconstruction. I criticize the model of revenge by examining the peace accords that followed World War I, and later the first Persian Gulf War. Then I suggest that the objective of justice after war should be the construction of what one could call "a regime of minimal justice" in the state of the defeated aggressor. Based on what we learn from history, I delineate what I call a recipe of ten steps to lead the process from beginning to end. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on a books by (1)_Larry May, War Crimes and Just War; (2) Charles Reed & David Ryall, The Price of Peace: Just War in the 21st Century; & (3) Michael Brough, John Lango, & Harry van der Linden [Eds], Rethinking the Just War Tradition.