One of the chief international security issues of today is humanitarian militaryintervention. In light of this, some questions have been raised about when and howoutsiders should get involved or if they are morally right at all to engage in humanitariancrises. In this paper Syria is the chosen case study because of its brutal crackdown and amassive human rights violation. The main purpose of this thesis is to understand themoral and legal criteria for launching a military intervention for humanitarian aid in Syriafollowed by a detailed analysis of its ethical, normative and legal issues. The maintheoretical framework of this study is just war theory. This study utilizes the criteria ofJus ad bellum principles, namely ‘legitimate authority’, ‘just cause’ and ‘right intention’in order to asses the extent to which Syria fits into the framework of just war theory. Thispaper also applies legal criteria such as the Charter of United Nations and internationallaw for the purpose of legal examination. The most complex issue in this thesis is the factthat although legitimate authority has the moral responsibilities to protect civilians, but itoften fails to uphold its responsibility mainly because of self-interest and the lack of rightintention.

More than a century before Grotius wrote his famous work on international law, his countryman Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam laid the foundations for the modern critique of war. In several writings, especially those published in the period 1515- 1517, the "prince of humanists" brilliantly and devastatingly condemned war not only on Christian but also on secular/rational grounds. His graphic depiction of the miseries of war, together with his impassionate plea for its avoidance, remains unparalleled. Erasmus argued as a moralist and educator rather than as a political theorist or statesman. If any single individual in the modern world can be credited with "the invention of peace", the honour belongs to Erasmus rather than Kant whose essay on perpetual peace was published nearly three centuries later. / Published erratum on last page.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

This essay seeks to evaluate whether or not  the war in Crimea, conducted by the Russian Federation, is to be considered “just”. This is done in accordance with the theory of Just war, which demands that there be two separate evaluations of the war. Firstly the reasons and actions that lead up to the war must be evaluated if they fulfill the demands set up by the theory, this is called “Jud ad bellum”. Next, the conduct once in the war must be evaluated if it fulfills the demands set up in the theory, this is called “jus in bello”. The Russian occupation of Crimea was not following a declaration of war, was against several international agreements and the war was not a last resort after attempts of diplomatic solutions  all of these actions violate key demands of jus ad bellum. Going through reports by various human rights organizations on the matter, the demands set up by “jus in bello” are determined to not be satisfied, mostly due to the Russian use of torture on prisoners to subtract incriminating information for use in court against prisoners of war.

Orientador: Héctor Luís Saint-Pierre / Banca: Rafael Duarte Villa / Banca: Samuel Alves Soares / O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais é instituído em parceria com a Unesp/Unicamp/PUC-SP, em projeto subsidiado pela CAPES, intitulado "Programa San Tiago Dantas". / Resumo: A incorporação do conceito da estratégia preemptiva ao documento de Estratégia de Segurança Nacional dos EUA em 2002, e a suposta aplicação dessa estratégia na Guerra do Iraque em 2003, fez com que os debates teóricos sobre guerras preventivas e preemptivas fossem reabertos. Em termos gerais, as guerras preventivas podem ser entendidas como o "início de uma ação militar em antecipação a ações danosas que não ocorrem no presente nem são iminentes". A análise da definição de guerras preventivas mereceu enfoque especial para embasar o estudo das três correntes teóricas principais sobre o tema nas Relações Internacionais, quais sejam: a proibição geral das guerras justas (bellum justum); o status quo legal (direito internacional) e o realismo político. Esta proposta de sistematização do debate nos parece a mais apropriada, por abranger as principais linhas argumentativas teóricas sobre o tema objeto da pesquisa. As abordagens sobre a proibição geral das guerras justas; sobre o status quo legal e realismo político, equivalem às denominadas abordagens moralistas, legalistas e realistas, respectivamente. Cada uma dessas três correntes prioriza uma dimensão de análise dentro da qual se levanta uma problemática sobre as guerras preventivas. De igual forma, constituem foco desta pesquisa as questões levantadas; para os adeptos do bellum justum a questão se coloca nos seguintes termos: as guerras preventivas são justas, isto é, são legítimas? Para os adeptos do status quo legal será: as guerras preventivas podem ser legais? E as levantadas pelos adeptos do realismo: as guerras preventivas são úteis? Com essas questões em mente apresentaremos os argumentos que cada corrente seleciona para respondê-las, esperando que joguem luz sobre as guerras preventivas. / Abstract: This research, on the theme of theories of preventive wars in international relations, focuses on the questions described next. For the followers of bellum justum: are preventive wars just, that is, legitimate? For the followers of the legal status quo: can preventive wars be legal? For the followers of political realism: are preventive wars utile? With these inquiries as its center, it aims to present the arguments that each of these lines of thought select to answer them. The incorporation of the concept of preemptive strategy in the USA's National Security Strategy document, in 2002, and the presumed application of this strategy in the Iraq War in 2003 caused the reopening of the debates about preventive and preemptive wars. In general terms, preventive wars can be understood as "the start of a military action in anticipation to harmful actions that do not occur in the present and are not imminent". Here, the definition's analyses of preventive wars received special attention, in order to create the foundation for the study of the three main lines of thought in the theme of International Relations: the blanket prohibition of just wars (bellum justum), the status quo (international law) and political realism. This debate's systematization proposal seems more appropriate because it embraces the main theoretical argumentative lines regarding the research's subject. The approaches referring to the just wars' general prohibition, the legal status quo and political realism are equivalent to what is called respectively moralist, legalist and realist approaches. Each one of these three lines of thought give priority to a determined analysis' scope, in which a determined problem about preventive wars is raised. The likely outcome of this specific research is to help clarify specific topics regarding preventive wars. / Mestre

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:27:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-06-15Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T19:36:25Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 palaciosjunior_amc_me_mar.pdf: 813863 bytes, checksum: d22bc93dce433e95371358f0a482dcf0 (MD5) / A incorporação do conceito da estratégia preemptiva ao documento de Estratégia de Segurança Nacional dos EUA em 2002, e a suposta aplicação dessa estratégia na Guerra do Iraque em 2003, fez com que os debates teóricos sobre guerras preventivas e preemptivas fossem reabertos. Em termos gerais, as guerras preventivas podem ser entendidas como o “início de uma ação militar em antecipação a ações danosas que não ocorrem no presente nem são iminentes”. A análise da definição de guerras preventivas mereceu enfoque especial para embasar o estudo das três correntes teóricas principais sobre o tema nas Relações Internacionais, quais sejam: a proibição geral das guerras justas (bellum justum); o status quo legal (direito internacional) e o realismo político. Esta proposta de sistematização do debate nos parece a mais apropriada, por abranger as principais linhas argumentativas teóricas sobre o tema objeto da pesquisa. As abordagens sobre a proibição geral das guerras justas; sobre o status quo legal e realismo político, equivalem às denominadas abordagens moralistas, legalistas e realistas, respectivamente. Cada uma dessas três correntes prioriza uma dimensão de análise dentro da qual se levanta uma problemática sobre as guerras preventivas. De igual forma, constituem foco desta pesquisa as questões levantadas; para os adeptos do bellum justum a questão se coloca nos seguintes termos: as guerras preventivas são justas, isto é, são legítimas? Para os adeptos do status quo legal será: as guerras preventivas podem ser legais? E as levantadas pelos adeptos do realismo: as guerras preventivas são úteis? Com essas questões em mente apresentaremos os argumentos que cada corrente seleciona para respondê-las, esperando que joguem luz sobre as guerras preventivas. / This research, on the theme of theories of preventive wars in international relations, focuses on the questions described next. For the followers of bellum justum: are preventive wars just, that is, legitimate? For the followers of the legal status quo: can preventive wars be legal? For the followers of political realism: are preventive wars utile? With these inquiries as its center, it aims to present the arguments that each of these lines of thought select to answer them. The incorporation of the concept of preemptive strategy in the USA`s National Security Strategy document, in 2002, and the presumed application of this strategy in the Iraq War in 2003 caused the reopening of the debates about preventive and preemptive wars. In general terms, preventive wars can be understood as “the start of a military action in anticipation to harmful actions that do not occur in the present and are not imminent”. Here, the definition’s analyses of preventive wars received special attention, in order to create the foundation for the study of the three main lines of thought in the theme of International Relations: the blanket prohibition of just wars (bellum justum), the status quo (international law) and political realism. This debate`s systematization proposal seems more appropriate because it embraces the main theoretical argumentative lines regarding the research’s subject. The approaches referring to the just wars` general prohibition, the legal status quo and political realism are equivalent to what is called respectively moralist, legalist and realist approaches. Each one of these three lines of thought give priority to a determined analysis` scope, in which a determined problem about preventive wars is raised. The likely outcome of this specific research is to help clarify specific topics regarding preventive wars.

Trots lagar, nationella som internationella, återkommer diskussionen om etik vid militära interventioner. Uppsatsen handlar om huruvida NATO:s intervention i Kosovo levde upp till etiska lagar kring militära interventioner samt om normativa teorier fortfarande är relevanta och lämnas utrymme idag.Syftet med uppsatsen är att se om det fortfarande finns utrymme idag för normativa teorier, såsom den etiska teorin just war theory, och om dessa är rimliga att använda. Uppsatsen använder fallstudien Kosovo som exempel och analyserar samtidigt hur denna intervention lever upp till de nio punkterna i teorin.Kvalitativ textanalys samt fallstudie av Kosovo har använts som metoder och just war theory har använts som teori.Resultatet visar att sju av nio punkter helt eller till stor del levdes upp till under NATO:s intervention i Kosovo, och att de resterande två till viss del levdes upp till. Undersökningen påvisar också att normativa teorier lämnas utrymme idag, och att teorin fortfarande kan vara relevant, om än med lite modifikation.

On January 3, 2020, Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani was killed through a targeted drone strike at the authorisation of the US President Donald Trump. This thesis examines if, and in that case how, the arguments presented by the Trump administration used to justify the killing of general Soleimani are in line with the principles of Just War theory. By conducting a case study, through a qualitative content analysis, analysing four official statements made by the Trump administration during a two months period after the killing, this thesis will examine the moral discourses in the arguments presented. Drawing on insights from studies regarding the justification of War on Terror, preemptive war, and targeted killings according to the Just War theory, lays the foundation for a deeper reasoning of the legality of the argumentation based on the principles of Just War. This thesis will show that in some aspects, the arguments presented by the Trump administration can be interpreted to be in accordance with one of the principles, but none of the statements satisfy the criteria in all of the principles. Therefore, the overall conclusion of this analysis is that the Trump administration has the intention of justifying the attack, but the arguments used are not rooted in Just War theory. Further, this thesis will also show an inconsistency over time in the arguments presented. The contribution from this study lays in the analysis of the arguments on the basis of the principles of Just War theory, not from the perspective of international law. The intention from this thesis is not to analyse if the attack itself can be seen as just according to Just War theory but looking at the argumentation presented by the Trump administration.

Jus post bellum is the less known part of the just war theory which concerns how one should act morally in the end and the aftermath of a war. Lately this component of the theory has gained a lot of attention among researchers who state that jus post bellum is at least as important as the other parts, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and needs to be given more priority. Central in the researchers’concepts of jus post bellum is the international community which is stated to be a key party in the implementation. This essay aims to increase the understanding about this subject by analyzing how the problems surrounding jus post bellum is discussed by the international community today. This is achieved by using the “What’s the Problem Represented to Be” (WPR) policy analysis approach on the UN general assembly debate held in 2019. The results shows that jus post bellum is discussed frequently in the debate and contains several similarities with the research overview. However, opinions are divided on what the problems, solutions, responsibilities and main factors are which can be a problem for future development.