In its last analysis the proposition is force to destroy force, conflict to prevent conflict, militarism to destroy militarism, war to prevent war. In its last analysis it must be that if it has any sanction behind its judgment at all. There is where the difficulty lies. . . .…
Using this framework, war can only be waged by a sovereign political actor, which the U.S. fulfills due to its position as a nation. The U.S. also fulfills the Right Intention tenet of Jus Ad Bellum since it is fighting a war to restore the peace due to the unpredictable nature of ISIS. Similarly, the fulfills the Just Cause tenet of Jus Ad Bellum since the war would be fought in self-defense and against a known threat to the international system (ISIS). Moreover, the US has tried to avoid direct war with ISIS, but this attack warrants retaliation, thus fulfilling the last resort tenet of Jus Ad Bellum, since war was a last resort. Since the United States can circumscribe the war to specific regions, the damages caused by the war will not outweigh the benefits brought by victory, fulfilling the proportionality tenet of Jus Ad Bellum. Similarly, since the U.S. knows it can defeat ISIS and suppress Assad and thus establish a lasting peace in Syria it fulfills the tenet of creating a lasting peace through the…
The focus of this investigation is the theory or concept of just war, and what makes a just war “Just.” This investigation will explore the question: To what extent can the Vietnam War be justified as a just war? Throughout this investigation, the philosophy of a just war will be broken down into its fundamental components. The purpose of this is to identify the extent of which…
The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the nature of humans, force is a necessary action to be used to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, since the Second World War, people have turned their attention to Just War again establishing rules that can serve as guidelines to a just war- the Hague and Geneva conventions.…
Military theory spans centuries of conflict all across the world. As such, military theorists have written in a variety of military climates, varying from the absence of gun powder to the presence of nuclear weapons. However, some military theories are transcendent. Some elements of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz are eternally wise. While their similarities may become universal truths, their differences are equally worthy of study because, it is in the differences where choices are made. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz agreed that war is chaos, military action is a tool for diplomatic goals and, as such, the results of warfare are not final. Their differences lie in how they advocate for waging war. The style and preparations for war contrast. This is where…
The resolution considers what justifies preventive military action. And so, we must consider what, indeed, justifies such military action. A set of moral standards on war exists in Just-war Theory, a theory that has evolved out of centuries of philosophy and experts of war, and so justification of military action should be justified within the framework of this theory. Philosopher Michael Walzer summarizes in his seminal book Just and Unjust Wars the five basic principles of modern Just-war Theory:…
-Brimlow talks about the draft and this use of men to promote war. Brimlow himself does not support the concept of supreme emergency. He says, “Let me very clear: even if just war theory is fatally flawed” (Brimlow, 2006, Pg. 69). He talks of the justification of killing and how Walzer speaks of the sacrifice of the innocent being ok in supreme emergency. This is almost a contradiction to what most just war theorists believe in. “This is of crucial importance, because even just war theorist deny that it is ever justifiable to kill the innocent directly and intentionally” (Brimlow, 2006, pg. 69). It seems that he uses this form of contradiction to show how he critiques. Brimlow talks about several events but a particularly problematic event…
In this chapter, Walzer discusses the cruelty of war and whether there can be any justification for such cruelty. He begins by distinguishing between the justice of war (jus ad bellum) and the justice in war (jus in bello). "War is always judged twice, first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting, secondly with reference to the means they adopt." (p.21).…
The bush doctrine is more prevention than preemption. His speech was more about prevention. He made a statement that we must prevent terrorisms and regimes weapons from threatening the United States and the world. He claimed that we can’t sit back and wait for them to attack us again. We must not wait and give them the chance to take us down. We should make them fear us. He was determined to prevent another terrorist attack to the United States. Bush considers the 9/11 attack as a potential threat. It was capable of happening again. He wanted to eliminate a possible future threat. Based on his interpretations,…
The decision to go to war has nothing to do with the individuals fighting the war. The warfighters are merely following the orders of the politicians and heads of state who have decided to enter into a war. Walzer claims, “We draw a line between the war itself, for which soldiers are not responsible, and the conduct of the war, for which they are responsible, at least within their own sphere of activity” (39). Soldiers are only responsible for what they directly take part in, so as long as both sides, whether fighting a just or unjust war, follow Jus in Bello principals all soldiers should have the same moral equality. However, Jeff McMahan presents a refutation to this belief in his piece, “Rethinking the ‘Just War’ Part 1”, in which he poses the idea that soldiers are directly responsibility for justice/ injustice of a war. McMahan adheres to a school of thought known as the revisionist approach which believes, “ … that it is the individual…
Just cause: In my opinion, the United States had no right to go into Iraq based solely on a theory that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. According to the Just War Theory, war is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger," to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.…
Force should be used when there are legitimate reasons for using it, and when it is the last resort for the government, who is responsible for civic peace. Elshtain uses Augustine to discuss justice and war. A paradox between war and peace is introduced, Elshtain uses an Augustine quote to discuss the similarity of two words that are complete polar opposites, “Peace and war had a contest in cruelty, and peace won the prize.” In history, there are many instances where evil and horrible things are done in the name of ‘peace’. Elshtain continues with the early Christian beliefs that under Jesus’ teaches forbid force in anyway, even under authority. Later, it transforms to the necessity of force to protect others. This leads to the four qualifications that Elshtain wrote to justify a war, the first is that the war must be publicly declared by a legitimate jurisdiction. The second criteria is that an unjust violence must have occurred against the government’s own people or a defenseless group. Third, the war has to be start with the proper motives. Finally, all other alternatives must be exhausted before leading to war. In the end, Elshtain includes a final criteria that must be met for a war to be ‘just’, the possibility of actually winning the conflict. If there is no chance of succeeding, the conflict should not be…
This article “Just War Tradition” also refer to as Just War Theory is related to war because it explains the principles and morals behind on taking war as a last resort solution only if the options don't meet the requirements. Also, in the case of war was to happen they discussed on when and where warfare is appropriate to be taken place. Including that, the Just War Tradition was originally discovered by the Christians and their based it on their philosophy. Then theorist Saint Augustine made who made other factions to their philosophy for a better outcome. As years passed another theorist named Michael Walzer stepped in but this time around modernize the principles. The government must apply two principles the first principle is Jus ad Bellum…
What justifies war? Who justifies it? Why as human beings do we feel the need to fight, harm, and kill others to achieve certain goals? These questions have been pertinent to our society since the beginning of time and continue to challenge us to better understand the human psyche, and code of ethics that give Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines credence to kill in the name of the United States of America. These ethics of war lay the foundation for that code of understanding and righteousness for when it is justifiable to pull the trigger and take the life of another, or commit an act of war.…
Negativity comes to mind on the issue of war as it is heard to be brutal or fatal, especially on innocent people and one cannot help but to hope for an outcome of peace or prosperity. Some respectful philosophers such as Mo Tzu, Sun Tzu, Eugene Delacroix, Pablo Picasso, Margaret Mead, Kenzaburo Oe, and Jean Bethke Elshtain can be found writing about their theories on war and peace in the text book, Reading the World: Ideas that Matter by Michael Austin. Over the years the issue of war has not disappeared nor has it ceased from carrying on lethal acts.…