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issue is that the classical formulation that identifies human nature as the catalyst of social disorder and war is superseded by the scientific method, which adheres to the viewpoint that war is complicated by numerous economic and political factors.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

La notion d'« armes de destruction massive » (ADM) est insaisissable : au lieu d'avoir pour but de mieux définir un type d'arme, elle agit à l'inverse, en créant une confusion entre l'arme et les conséquences de son emploi. Cette nature inconsistante se poursuit au niveau juridique. En effet, bien que l'expression fasse très tôt son entrée au sein des Nations unies, aucun traité ni organe officiel n'a, jusqu'alors, réussi à en donner une définition probante. À défaut de définition incontestable, et en l'absence d'un critère vérifiable d'identification de ce qu'est une « arme de destruction massive », cette notion s'est avérée préjudiciable. L'écart entre la réalité de la menace existante en matière d'« armes de destruction massive » et la façon dont elle fut perçue, puis gérée par la communauté internationale, c'est-à-dire à la fois par les États de façon individuelle et par les organisations internationales et les traités de façon collective, a conduit à de multiples dérives. Par conséquent, s'agissant là d'une notion plus politique que juridique, il apparaît nécessaire qu'elle soit précisée ou abandonnée / The term « weapons of mass destruction » (WMD) is ambiguous: instead of aiming to clearly define a certain type of weapon, it does the opposite by creating confusion between the weapon itself and the consequences of its use. This confusion is also reflected at in the legal definition. Indeed, even though the term has been used by the United Nations from an early stage, no treaty or official entity has succeeded in providing a clear definition to this day. The lack of a clear definition, and the absence of defined criteria to determine what constitutes a « weapon of mass destruction », has turned out to be damaging. The dichotomy between the existing threat from « weapons of mass destruction » and the way it is perceived and handled by the international community, including individual states, international organisations, as well as collective treaties, has resulted in several instances of inappropriate use. As a consequence, the term has become a political rather than legal notion. A clearer legal definition is needed, or otherwise the term should be abandoned