This work intends to be an application and understanding of the Christian just war tradition as it pertains to the actions of the United States government in Iraq. It includes a short history of the evolution of the tradition, the application and discussion of the three most controversial criterion, and a discussion of how the terror attacks on the World Trade Center may constitute a pre-emptive strike. Essentially, the piece endeavors to explore how untested, unseen dangers drive a government to act for the defense of its citizens and their way of life. The theory draws heavily on Michael Walzer’s invention of the concept of “supreme emergency” which allowed for exceptional actions during war if a people’s entire way of life is threatened.

This work intends to be an application and understanding of the Christian just war tradition as it pertains to the actions of the United States government in Iraq. It includes a short history of the evolution of the tradition, the application and discussion of the three most controversial criterion, and a discussion of how the terror attacks on the World Trade Center may constitute a pre-emptive strike. Essentially, the piece endeavors to explore how untested, unseen dangers drive a government to act for the defense of its citizens and their way of life. The theory draws heavily on Michael Walzer’s invention of the concept of “supreme emergency” which allowed for exceptional actions during war if a people’s entire way of life is threatened.

The aim of this paper is to assess the applicability of the Just War Tradition to a declaration of war on terrorism. The specific content that the paper will be analysing is the U.S. decision to declare war on terror in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. I will be focusing on three conditions used to justify preemptive attacks, which are essential to the Just War Tradition. (i.e. the scope of the self, the existence of evidence, and military intervention as a last resort). The method used, will be discourse analysis, focusing on how the United States justified their decision to go to war on terror. This study suggests that the U.S. justification was built upon their knowledge and use of the principles of the JWT. The findings shows that the conditions of a justified preemptive attack can be applied to the U.S. justification to declare war on terror. However, when the three conditions are applied, some important questions and implications arise. The main interpretation of the findings is that problems arise when the scope of the self is defined too widely. This, in combination with further implications, indicates that there is a need for a more structured framework in which terrorism can be analysed.

<p>The thesis argues that, as a tradition, the concept of just war is socially and contextually sensitive and revisable. It explores the relevance of theory according to the dynamic changes in the nature of threats in the international arena and concludes that the just war tradition is still relevant to the contemporary modern threats that require an act of pre-emptive warfare. However, it needs some revision to be comprehensively applicable to the dynamic of modern threats and the nature of pre-emptive war. Due to the nature of pre-emptive war a nation launches the attack before the aggression from the other nation-in-conflict erupts. The author, therefore, proposed several theoretical and procedural revisions in both the principle of “Jus Ad Bellum” and “Jus In Bello” using the method of reflective equilibrium to create a comprehensive “just” pre-emptive war doctrine as part of the development and dynamic in just war tradition.</p>

The thesis argues that, as a tradition, the concept of just war is socially and contextually sensitive and revisable. It explores the relevance of theory according to the dynamic changes in the nature of threats in the international arena and concludes that the just war tradition is still relevant to the contemporary modern threats that require an act of pre-emptive warfare. However, it needs some revision to be comprehensively applicable to the dynamic of modern threats and the nature of pre-emptive war. Due to the nature of pre-emptive war a nation launches the attack before the aggression from the other nation-in-conflict erupts. The author, therefore, proposed several theoretical and procedural revisions in both the principle of “Jus Ad Bellum” and “Jus In Bello” using the method of reflective equilibrium to create a comprehensive “just” pre-emptive war doctrine as part of the development and dynamic in just war tradition.

Why has international society been unable to develop political and judicial collective-security arrangements to limit external aggression? The thesis argues that efforts to limit aggression in moral and legal theory have created an unjust order in which great powers have used these theoretical traditions to reinforce their power in the global order. The thesis argues that is not a new development but can be found in one of the oldest traditions of moral reflection on war, the just war tradition. To substantiate this point, the thesis critically surveys the philosophers of the ancient Greek, Roman, Medieval Christian Renaissance, and early modern theorists of just war and demonstrates that their just war ideas contain assumptions about exclusion, identity and power reflecting their cultural superiority which underlie the practices and theories of the leading states and justifications of their aggressive wars. The thesis connects these moral reflections to the emergence of modern international law and the European pluralist international society of states based on mutual respect for sovereignty and the norm of non-intervention, highlighting how justifications of its colonial aggression against non-Europeans established an unjust solidarist order against them which persists in the post-Cold War era. To conclude it presents suggestions for improvement in the current pluralist international arrangements to address the issue of aggression.