In 1936 the founders of PAX aimed at 'resistance to modern warfare on grounds of traditional morality'. Believing that 'just war' criteria could no longer be met, they called themselves pacifists. Although most members were Roman Catholic Pax did not claim to be a 'Catholic society' because the RC Church at that time took an opposing view, particularly of conscientious objection. Church authorities attempted to censor Pax literature and instructed clergy to resign from the society. Pax supported conscientious objectors during the Second World War. When membership declined afterwards it continued to publish the Pax Bulletin and to provide a forum where Catholics could debate theological and practical questions of war and peace. By the 1960s Pax had gained some distinguished sponsors and a branch in the United States - support which enabled it to influence debate at the Second Vatican Council in 1965. The Council endorsed the right to conscientious objection. In 1971 Pax merged with Pax Christi, the international Catholic peace organisation which began in France in 1944/45. This is the first detailed historical study of the Roman Catholic element in the British peace movement. The story of Pax demonstrates the part that even a small pressure group can play in changing public opinion through patient work. Eventually, despite apathy and opposition, Pax helped bring the RC Church to a recognition of the right to conscientious objection and played a crucial role in the development of a more widespread peace movement within the Church

The challenge of the just war theory in the post-modern era is compounded by technologic advances in warfare and the friction among state actors in a decentralized state system. The inquiry of this investigation on just war is the extent of its validity in an era that extols the sciences and human reason on the one hand and economic necessity on the other as the standard by which state actors regulate their political objectives. The thesis Just war; unjust consequences examines the longevity of the just war tradition, its moral necessity throughout history and its indispensable application in the nuclear age. Chapter 2 examines the moral foundations of the ‘two kingdoms’, which formulates the background of the just war theory, from the biblical account of the great controversy between good and evil to the formation of modern church/state relations. Within the ancient and contemporary setting, ecclesiastical and theological traditions have provided a public platform to establish moral parameters in regards to state actor intent and post-modern application, such as the U.S.-Iraq war. Chapter 3 investigates Augustine’s enduring contribution to the moral and historical formation and longevity of the just war theory. From its earliest development to its modern antecedent the just war theory has been an integral aspect of the philosophical and theological analysis distinguishing ‘why’ and ‘how’ wars are fought and the import of moral parameters to manage international conflict. Chapter 4 examines Reinhold Niebuhr’s contribution to the realist tradition and U.S. foreign policy in the 20th and 21st centuries. This section examines the impact of the modern state actor’s intent for war. The primary issue is that the classical formulation that identifies human nature as the catalyst of social disorder and war is superseded by the scientific method, which adheres to the viewpoint that war is complicated by numerous economic and political factors. Hans Morgenthau’s realist tradition of international relations theory, which advocates that humankind is the centric disruptive force by its abuse of power at all levels of human interaction especially among nations was eventually eclipsed by Kenneth Waltz’s neorealist school of thought, which shifted the culpability of war from the egocentricities of human nature to the disproportions of economic and military power among competing state actors in a decentralized state system. This shift in international relations theory within the framework of weapons of mass destruction contested the validity of the just war tradition in the nuclear age. Chapter 5 reasserts the Christian realist tradition’s viewpoint that the perpetrator for war is the individual actor within collective competitive self-interest, epitomized by the state actor. The classical model is reinstated as a plausible cause for war. It is within this framework that a contemporary adaptation of the just war moral theory is provided to contest the contemporary complexities of warfare in the 21st century. Chapter 6 investigates the practical challenges of modern warfare. The background of Operation Iraqi Freedom reveals the complications of state actor competition in international politics, and the necessity of moral parameters to thwart unwarranted state actor aggression. Finally, Chapter 7 reiterates, the prolonged necessity of the just war tradition in both the ancient and modern eras and, the import of moral parameters to thwart unwarranted state actor aggression and provides a reformulation of the just war moral theory to challenge the viewpoint that deems the utility of weapons of mass destruction as viable national security alternative and its tactical application in warfare. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2014 / gm2015 / Practical Theology / PhD / Unrestricted

People can disengage from their internalized moral standards and self-regulation in order to perform immoral behaviour by using different Moral Disengagement mechanisms. These mechanisms within media have a positive effect on immoral behaviour. However, Moral Identity activation is said to counter arguments of Moral Disengagement. In this study, both concepts are applied to the context of war. An additional assumption took into account in how far participants’ internalized moral standards consider war as immoral. This is important since Moral Identity and Moral Disengagement are based on internalized moral standards. To test the hypotheses, this study employed a 2 x 2 RO between-subjects factorial design. The trait variable called Moral Consideration of War was supposed to reflect participants’ internalized moral standards with regard to war. It was used to operationalize the additional assumption. Factor 1 varied the activation of Moral Identity (Moral Identity activation versus control group) and factor 2 varied the depiction of the war scenario (Permissive Scenario versus Prohibitive Scenario). Scenarios were fictive newspaper articles. A Permissive Scenario comprised a higher number of arguments based on Moral Disengagement mechanisms than a Prohibitive Scenario. Main outcome measures were the support of war and war-related Moral Disengagement (questionnaire). In total 86 participants (f=45, m=41) were randomized into four cells and completed the online experiment. The Permissive Scenario failed to increase support of war and Moral Disengagement (questionnaire), on the assumption that war is considered immoral. Moral Identity activation had a negative effect on Moral Disengagement only on the assumption that war was considered moral. Moral Identity activation had no significant effect on support of war, on the premise that war was considered immoral. The interaction term of Moral Identity activation and Permissive Scenario had no significant effect neither on support of war nor on Moral Disengagement, no matter if additional assumption was taken into account or not. Results are discussed with regard to methodological limitations measuring internalized moral standards. Their measurement implied already individual Moral Disengagement. Interaction effect failed, supposedly because Moral Identity activation was not specifically targeted at immoral behaviour and because mediating effects of Moral Identity centrality were not considered.:I. CONTENTS I. Contents 2 II. List of Figures 5 III. List of Tables 6 IV. List of Equations 7 V. Abstract 8 VI. Zusammenfassung 9 1 Introduction 10 2 Theory 12 2.1 Moral Disengagement 12 2.1.1 Socio Cognitive Theory of Morality 12 2.1.2 Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement 13 2.1.3 Moral Disengagement and War 13 2.2 Moral Disengagement and Media 17 2.2.1 Moral Disengagement in Media and Aggressive Behaviour 18 2.2.2 Moral Disengagement in Media and War 19 2.2.3 Operationalization of Scenarios 21 2.3 Moral Identity 22 2.3.1 Moral Identity Centrality 22 2.3.2 Moral Identity Activation and Moral Disengagement 24 2.3.3 Moral Identity Activation in Interaction with Moral Disengagement in Media 26 2.4 Hypotheses 28 2.5 Reasons for this study 30 3 Methods 32 3.1 Experimental Design 32 3.1.1 Participants 33 3.2 Procedures 34 3.2.1 Trait Variables 34 3.2.2 Independent Variables 36 3.2.3 Dependent Variables 38 3.3 Statistical Analysis 39 4 Results 41 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 41 4.1.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics 41 4.1.2 Moral Consideration of War 42 4.1.3 Dependent Variables 42 4.2 Manipulation Check 43 4.3 Hypotheses Tests 44 4.3.1 Hypothesis 1a 47 4.3.2 Hypotheses 2a + 3a 48 4.3.3 Hypothesis 4a 49 4.3.4 Hypotheses 5a + 6a 50 4.3.5 Hypothesis 7a 53 5 Discussion 55 5.1 Moral Disengagement and Support of War 56 5.2 Moral Identity and Support of War 57 5.3 Methodological Problems 58 5.4 Discussion Main Effects without Additional Assumption 60 5.4.1 Moral Disengagement 61 5.4.2 Moral Identity 63 5.5 Limitations 65 5.5.1 Sample 65 5.5.2 Methods 67 5.6 Conclusion 68 6 References 70 7 Annex 76 7.1 Operationalization Permissive Scenario (German) 84 7.2 Operationalization Prohibitive Scenario (German) 86 7.3 Study Description for Participants (German) 88 8 Acknowledgements 89 9 Selbstständigkeitserklärung 90 / Die Mechanismen der Moralischen Entkopplung lösen das Selbst von internalisierten moralischen Standards und verhindern damit die Selbstregulierung des moralischen Verhaltens. Diese Mechanismen kommen auch in Medien vor und tragen zu unmoralischem Verhalten bei. Die Aktivierung der Moralischen Identität wirkt jedoch den Mechanismen der Moralischen Entkopplung entgegen. In dieser Studie werden beide Konzepte auf das Thema Krieg übertragen. Dabei ist wichtig zu beachten, dass internalisierte moralische Standards Krieg als unmoralisch bewerten. Schließlich basieren sowohl Moralische Entkopplung als auch die Aktivierung der Moralischen Identität auf dieser zusätzlichen Annahme. Zur Überprüfung der Hypothesen wurde ein 2 x 2 RO Between-Subjects Design verwendet. Faktor 1 variierte die Aktivierung von Moralischer Identität (Aktivierung Moralische Identität versus Kontrollgruppe). Faktor 2 variierte die Permissivität eines Kriegsszenarios in einem Zeitungsartikel (Permissives Szenario versus Prohibitives Szenario). Dabei wurde Permissivität hinsichtlich der Anzahl der Moralischen Entkopplungsmechanismen operationalisiert (Viele versus Wenig). Als Organismusvariable ist die Moralische Bewertung von Krieg zur Überprüfung der zusätzlichen Annahme notwendig gewesen. Abhängige Variablen waren die Unterstützung von Krieg und Moralische Entkopplung (Fragebogen). Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer (N=86, f=45, m=41) des online Experiments wurden in vier verschiedene Versuchsbedingungen randomisiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass die Permissivität des Kriegsszenarios keinen Effekt auf Moralische Entkopplung (Fragebogen) oder die Unterstützung von Krieg hatte, unter Berücksichtigung der Zusatzannahme. Moralische Identitätsaktivierung verringerte Moralische Entkopplung (Fragebogen) aber nur unter der Bedingung, dass Krieg als moralisch bewertet wurde. Moralische Entkopplung hatte keinen Effekt auf die Unterstützung von Krieg, unter Berücksichtigung der Zusatzannahme. Die Interaktion von Moralischer Identitätsaktivierung mit der Permissivität des Kriegsszenarios war nicht signifikant, unabhängig davon ob die Zusatzannahme berücksichtigt wurde oder nicht. Die Ergebnisse werden in Bezug auf die methodischen Probleme bei der Messung internalisierter moralischer Standards diskutiert. Es fanden vermutlich Prozesse der Moralischen Entkopplung bereits während der Messung dieser Standards statt. Der fehlende Interaktionseffekt kann an der schwachen und unspezifischen Aktivierung der Moralischen Identität liegen, sowie nicht berücksichtigter Mediatoren, wie z.B. die Zentralität von Moralischer Identität.:I. CONTENTS I. Contents 2 II. List of Figures 5 III. List of Tables 6 IV. List of Equations 7 V. Abstract 8 VI. Zusammenfassung 9 1 Introduction 10 2 Theory 12 2.1 Moral Disengagement 12 2.1.1 Socio Cognitive Theory of Morality 12 2.1.2 Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement 13 2.1.3 Moral Disengagement and War 13 2.2 Moral Disengagement and Media 17 2.2.1 Moral Disengagement in Media and Aggressive Behaviour 18 2.2.2 Moral Disengagement in Media and War 19 2.2.3 Operationalization of Scenarios 21 2.3 Moral Identity 22 2.3.1 Moral Identity Centrality 22 2.3.2 Moral Identity Activation and Moral Disengagement 24 2.3.3 Moral Identity Activation in Interaction with Moral Disengagement in Media 26 2.4 Hypotheses 28 2.5 Reasons for this study 30 3 Methods 32 3.1 Experimental Design 32 3.1.1 Participants 33 3.2 Procedures 34 3.2.1 Trait Variables 34 3.2.2 Independent Variables 36 3.2.3 Dependent Variables 38 3.3 Statistical Analysis 39 4 Results 41 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 41 4.1.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics 41 4.1.2 Moral Consideration of War 42 4.1.3 Dependent Variables 42 4.2 Manipulation Check 43 4.3 Hypotheses Tests 44 4.3.1 Hypothesis 1a 47 4.3.2 Hypotheses 2a + 3a 48 4.3.3 Hypothesis 4a 49 4.3.4 Hypotheses 5a + 6a 50 4.3.5 Hypothesis 7a 53 5 Discussion 55 5.1 Moral Disengagement and Support of War 56 5.2 Moral Identity and Support of War 57 5.3 Methodological Problems 58 5.4 Discussion Main Effects without Additional Assumption 60 5.4.1 Moral Disengagement 61 5.4.2 Moral Identity 63 5.5 Limitations 65 5.5.1 Sample 65 5.5.2 Methods 67 5.6 Conclusion 68 6 References 70 7 Annex 76 7.1 Operationalization Permissive Scenario (German) 84 7.2 Operationalization Prohibitive Scenario (German) 86 7.3 Study Description for Participants (German) 88 8 Acknowledgements 89 9 Selbstständigkeitserklärung 90

This thesis investigates the portrayal of the Mariupol Theatre Airstrike withinthe Russo-Ukrainian War through a discourse analysis of news articles fromdiverse media outlets in Russia, Ukraine, France, Germany, the UK, and theUS. The study employs a qualitative comparative case study approach withinthe academic domain of targeting civilians in war. By applying the lenses oftraditionalist and revisionist perspectives within the theoretical framework ofJust War Theory, the research aims to understand how moral judgements aremanifested in the discourses presented by the media outlets reporting on theMariupol Theatre Airstrike. Notably, the findings reveal a dichotomy in media reporting: Russian mediaadopts a blend of traditionalist and revisionist positions, while Westernmedia also exhibits a blend of both positions, leaning more towards therevisionist perspective. By focusing on the specific case of the MariupolTheatre Airstrike, the study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis thatcontributes to the broader understanding of the complexities of media and theprovide a nuanced understanding on how moral judgments are being exhibited in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Studiens syfte var att analysera Israels roll innan och efter Sexdagarskriget med utgångspunkt inom rättfärdig krigsteori och dess kriterier. Det jag ville göra med studien var att analysera om Israel uppfyllde kraven för att initiera ett krig rättfärdigt, och sedan använde sig av rättfärdiga åtgärder vid efterkrigstiden. Studiens metodval var en kvalitativ innehållsanalys med en deduktiv ansats där material hämtades från olika arkiv och andra relevanta källor för att besvara syftet. Resultatet redovisades i en kronologisk ordning för att visa ett tydligt händelseförlopp mellan den 15 maj och 22 november 1967. Analysen visade på att Israel uppfyllde kriterierna för jus ad bellum genom ett tydligt casus belli vilket var stängningen av Tiran-sunden för israelitiska fartyg. Analysen om kriterierna för Israels jus post bellum uppfylldes däremot inte eftersom inga åtgärder som krävdes tas av Israels regering. Israel visade i stället på en motvilja att förhandla och till slut gjordes omöjlig med de arabiska tre nej. / This study aimed to assess Israel's role before and after the Six-Day War, utilizing the framework of just war theory and its associated criteria. The primary objective was to examine whether Israel adhered to the prerequisites for justly initiating a war and subsequently implemented just measures in the post-war period. The study employed a qualitative content analysis with a deductive approach, data were sourced from state archives and other pertinent materials. The results were organized chronologically, offering a coherent depiction of events unfolding between May 15 and November 22 1967. The analysis indicated that Israel satisfied the criteria for jus ad bellum by presenting a clear casus belli, namely the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. However, the examination of Israel's jus post bellum criteria revealed failure to take any just measures. The Israeli government did not undertake any of the required actions. Instead, Israel exhibited a reluctance to engage in negotiations as they did not want to engage first, a stance that ultimately led to the arabs’ three nos.

No description available.

The aim this thesis is to analyse whether or not Georgia can be considered to have had legitimate reasons for involvement in the five-day war in South Ossetia in August of 2008. This topic is relevant today for two predominant reasons one being that August of 2018 marks the 10th anniversary of the outbreak of the war between Georgian, Russian and South Ossetian forces. Who’s to blame for the outbreak of the war has, in the last decade, been widely discussed and analysed from different standpoints. This thesis’ main intention is to evaluate the Georgian point of view and find out Georgia’s responsibility for the conflict. This analysis is based on the theoretical framework called “Just War Theory”, an ancient tradition which, through centuries, have set up guidelines over how a war should be initiated, conducted and handled after ceasefire and thereafter. In this theoretical framework there is 6 criteria which establish moral, ethical and legitimate reasons for a state to wage war called “Jus ad bellum”. These 6 criteria are used as the factual theoretical base for the analysis.The condition of the chosen theoretical framework requires that all the criteria needs to be fulfilled in order for a state to be considered to have lawful reasons to wage war against another. Based on this framework, it is concluded in this thesis that Georgia did not have rightful reasons to engage in the five-day war in August 2008.

The day of September 11, 2001 which was primarily seen like an ordinary day was significantly written into the world's history. The worst terrorist attack of all ages were commited in the United States, nearly 3.000 people were killed during the attacks. American administration in response to the attacks declared the "war on terorr", which was mainly represented by military interventions to Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003. Inseparable part of Bush's foreign policy was National Security Strategy, which is the strategic basis for invasion to Iraq, approved on September 2002. This concept of this analysis is dealing with these three concrete events of american foreign policy which are specified on the background of Just War Theory JWT. Concretely on the basis of category jus ad bellum - right to war. The main aim of this work is to explore compatibility of these missions with the principles of just war and find out whether operations were launched justly according to JWT. National Security Strategy NSS - which is discussable in the current international system with the regard of the controversial concept of preemption - is important part of the research too. Pre-emptive strategy is confronted with the just war theory, primarily in the sence whether it is possible to consider preemption like just cause...

This thesis focuses on the issue of drone strikes as a means of targeted killing of high value targets suspected of terrorist activities or affiliations. The United States of America has been using this method of elimination since the year 2001 as part of the Global War on Terrorism. However this practice raises a series of moral questions. It creates a new environment of alienation of the target and the person pulling the trigger. This thesis examines the compliance of drone strikes and the Global War on Terrorism as such with the Just War Theory. This theory is the leading concept in warfare ethics and offers a comprehensive research pattern. The finding of this thesis is that the use of drones, as it is employed today, is in conflict with the principles of this theory and therefore unjust. This finding is demonstrated by the research of two concrete drone strikes. Additionally, the Global War on Terrorism is also assessed to be an unjust war and therefore this thesis offers a comprehensive insight into the topic as it assesses both the practice and the overall context of drone strikes.

No description available.