Just-Warists and War-Pacifists disagree on whether soldiers are morally justified in killing each other in wartime combat. Many of their respective arguments, and their contradictory conclusions, are based upon principles of self-defense. In this thesis, I examine the role that principles of self-defense play in the arguments surrounding the moral justification of killing in combat. I do so by critiquing both a Just-Warist argument that relies on self-defense (constructed from the works of Michael Walzer and Judith Jarvis Thomson) and a War-Pacifist argument (developed by Richard Norman) that condemns killing in combat based on the moral requirements of self-defense. I demonstrate that both arguments fail due to their mistaken assumptions that soldiers are not morally responsible for their actions. I conclude by arguing that--once soldiers are recognized as morally responsible agents--killing in combat can be morally justified by principles of self-defense. / Master of Arts

No description available.

This thesis is primarily an application of the Christian tradition of Just War to the problems arising from the basing of US nuclear weapons in South Korea and the development of nuclear weapons by the regime in the North. The Christian theology of Just War has developed over the last two thousand years, adapting as first Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, through the break down of any enforceable norms in Europe‘s 'Dark Ages‘, to the emergence of the concept of the modern nation state at the end of the Thirty Years Wars in 1648. Throughout these shifts, two issues have remained constant, although their relative weight has changed. First that a war can only be described as 'just' if it is being waged for legitimate reasons, jus ad bellum, and that is waged in a proportionate manner that seeks to separate combatants from non-combatants, jus in bello. Both these ideas were severely weakened in the period of warfare that followed on from the American and French Revolutions at the end of the Eighteenth Century. The new ideology of nationalism brought with it the idea of the nation at arms, the armed citizenry, and with this, a further blurring of the always weak distinction between soldiers and the wider population. By 1945, both the secular and Christian tradition lay in ruins, damaged by the total warfare in the twentieth century when anything and anyone who could contribute to the wider war effort became a target. Also, although not the most destructive weapon, this saw the advent of the nuclear bomb. In response, Christian thinkers sought to redefine the concepts of Just War for a nuclear age, with the potential for the use of weapons that could destroy all of humanity. Some saw this as the lesser evil, when faced with the victory of a totalitarian political system, and others argued that proportionality could be maintained if the size of weapons, or their targeting, was such as to minimise wider damage. On the other hand, many theologians argued that by definition they could never be discriminate or proportionate and that their use (or even the implied threat of their use) would always fail the precepts of Jus in Bello. In the modern Korean context, this debate is not abstract, but has real bearing on the practical steps being taken by all the main parties. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by the North (the DPRK) has meant that the desire for Korean re-unification has become entwined with how best to resolve the nuclear issue. At the moment, in the South amongst the Protestant communities (split between the CCK and the NCCK), this debate has become fixed on issues of practical politics. In effect, is it better to negotiate with the North over the nuclear weapons issue and hope that resolving this will then lead to reunification or is it better to aim to overthrow the DPRK (economically, politically or even militarily) and, this, by definition, would resolve the question of their possession of nuclear weapons. At the moment both the NCCK and the CCK have based their policies towards North Korea (the DPRK) on the basis of secular politics not the teachings of the Christian gospel. The NCCK is tending to overlook human rights abuses in the DPRK, and the threat of that regime‘s nuclear arsenal, in their emphasis on the need to overcome the political division of Korea. In turn, the CCK ignores much Christian teaching with its emphasis on seeking the collapse (perhaps by military means) of the DPRK as a precursor to unification. In this, both bodies seem to have forgotten that they are fundamentally Christian confessional bodies, and as such their public statements should be based on the Gospels, not on the practicalities of day to day politics. Neither approach is particularly grounded on either in the Christian message of the gospels or the Just War tradition. Thus this thesis does not just seek to explore and explain the current situation in Korea using the concepts of Just War, it also seeks to provide a basis on which the Protestant community can resolve their current impasse. This means the thesis is grounded on the Christian concept of political theology, in particular in so far as this approach 'offers alternatives to better comprehend the different postures and approaches towards a solution‘. In the case of the situation in Korea, this means there is no military solution to the problem of unification. Nor can a solution be found in ignoring the human rights abuses in the DPRK. The answer lies in stressing three aspects that remain fundamental to any Christian identity in Korea – of a unified Korean koinoina, that any resort to force must meet the conditions of the Christian Just War tradition, and that, as faith groups, any response must stem from the Gospels.

2003 George W. Bush ordered US forces to invade Iraq. US won a quick victory and the strong leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was defeated and his regime fell with him. The consequenses of the invasion has afterwards proved to be devestating and a debate about whether the invasion could be justified awakened. Out of this debate the issue of this essay was born. This essays purpose is namely to answer the question; Can the US official motives to the invasion of Iraq 2003 be considered as justified accordig to Just war theory? Just war theory is an established theory consisting of four criteria that should be met to justify war. As this essay investigates wether Just war theory correspond with the US official motives to the invasion or not the work has been of theory-testing character. To answer the research question has case study method and analysis of ideas-technique been used. By comparing Just war theory criteria with the US official motives the conclusion reached is that only two out of four criteria are fully met and thereby can the US official motives to the invasion of Iraq 2003 not be considered as justified according to Just war theory.

Thesis advisor: Ali Banuazizi / This thesis is a comparative analysis of the varying approaches by which modern Islamist militancy movements attempt to justify their respective use of violent jihad within Islamic doctrine. This ultimate focus is contextualized by a broader study of the historical role of religion in the development of modern ethical standards for warfare. Justifications for horrific bloodshed and injustice in the Just War traditions of both Christianity and Islam have manifested themselves in the actual military campaigns of the Crusades and jihad respectively. These historical and modern examples demonstrate the precarious complexity of the dual role of religion to both restrict and require warfare in the cause of justice. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: Islamic Civilization and Society Honors Program. / Discipline: Islamic Civilization and Society.

This dissertation will examine the dangers created by governmental entities that possess or seek to possess weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), for possible use against other states. In order to counter such a threat, traditional notions of anticipatory self-defense such as preemption might prove ineffective as the deployment of WMDs can be carried out in a matter of minutes. As a result of this, some jurists and politicians have called for the broadening of anticipatory self-defense to include preventive force. While the use of preemptive force has been recognized as a legitimate form of selfdefense, such recognition has not been extended to the use of preventive force. This research attempts to answer the following questions: Under what circumstances can preventive force be used against a target state that develops WMDs with the alleged intention to use them? And what procedures would ensure that preventive force is used in a manner that minimizes the possibility of abuse by the state claiming to exercise its right of self-defense? The dissertation will propose a normative framework that will define the scope of the lawful use of preventive force when a state is claiming to be using such force against another state as an exercise of self-defense. The proposed legal framework takes into consideration both recent legal developments as well as relevant instances of state practice in order to circumscribe the use of preventive force to clearly defined cases. The determination of the legality of a preventive strike should be made by the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council would be presented with a proposed preventive strike by a state making the allegation that the strike is necessary to stop another state from developing WMDs that would be used against it in the future. In order to secure an approval for the preventive strike, the “preventor” state would have to show compelling reasons, such as the target state’s prior bad actions, as to why such a strike is necessary. / acase@tulane.edu

Thesis (S.T.M.)--Yale Divinity School, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 130-136).

The ethics of economic sanctions is an issue that has been curiously neglected by philosophers and political theorists. Only a handful of philosophical journal articles and book chapters have ever been published on the subject; yet economic sanctions, as I will show, are significantly morally problematic and their use stands in need of moral justification. The aim of this thesis then is to consider how economic sanctions might be morally justified. Of the few writers who have considered this issue, the majority point to the analogies between economic sanctions and war and use the just war principles (just cause, proportionality etc.) as a framework within which to assess their moral permissibility. I argue that this is a mistake. The just war principles are derived from a set of complex and detailed arguments all planted firmly within the context of war. These arguments contain premises that, whilst they may hold true in the case of war, do not always hold true in the case of economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the rich just war tradition does offer a valuable starting point for theorising about economic sanctions and in the thesis I consider how the wider just war tradition might be brought to bear on the case of economic sanctions, beginning, not with the just war principles, but with the underlying arguments for those principles. In particular, I consider whether economic sanctions can be justified on the grounds that they are a form of self- or other-defence, that they are the ‘lesser evil’ and that they are a form of punishment. I argue that certain types of economic sanctions can be justified on the grounds that they are a form of self- or other- defence and that, in extreme circumstances, certain types of economic sanctions can be justified as the ‘lesser evil’. However, I argue that economic sanctions cannot be justified on the grounds of punishment. I also develop a ‘clean hands’ argument for economic sanctions that is unavailable to the just war theorist; I argue that where the goods and services to be supplied would contribute to human rights violations or other wrongful acts, there is a duty to impose economic sanctions to avoid complicity in this wrongdoing.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves[53]-58).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves[53]-58).