Serving in the military is often a disruptive event in the lives of those who join, precipitating a reassessment of the service member’s ethical sensibilities or, tragically, resulting in lasting moral injury and trauma. The military experience compels them to navigate multiple identities, from citizen to warrior and back. Their religious identity, sometimes rooted in a civilian religious community, can be altered by military participation. Those who find faith during service often adopt one rooted in military culture. Still others find faith after leaving the service, providing a salve for the disruption of military experience. In many cases, religious cultural toolkits provide necessary meaning-making frameworks to make sense of war; however, these same frameworks can exacerbate trauma when moral expectations do not reflect reality, resulting in moral injury. Drawing on a series of inductive, in-depth qualitative interviews with forty-eight veterans and six military chaplains, this dissertation explores how varied religious resources and potentially traumatic events affect the lives of post-9/11 veterans who once or currently identified as Christian. Adding to existing research on moral injury, it traces how military chaplains, ethics education, just war theory rhetoric, and formal religious practice supplied by the military alter the course of service members’ moral lives. As these resources aim and re-aim them at the military’s institutional strategic goals, service members come to inhabit the warrior identity. Amid this new identity and the realities of modern warfare, trauma is likely, and service members must navigate an interruption to their deeply held moral beliefs, narratives, and expectations. After service, lasting moral wounds, traumatic experiences, and a loss of identity can make reintegrating to the civilian sector challenging, thus precipitating or exacerbating trauma. These narrative trajectories reveal how veterans use Christian faith or other systems of meaning-making to understand war and their identities as service members and veterans. Drawing on post-traumatic theologies and feminist and womanist ethics, this dissertation argues that these stories uncover tainted theological frameworks and a military culture in need of redemption. / 2023-11-04T00:00:00Z

In this essay I examine whether the CIA operatives can be considered as legitimate practitioners of violence in a conflict situation, thus looking through a lens where terrorism is treated as an act of war. This paper does not purport to evaluate and review the legality of targeted killing as a mean of warfare or a tool for criminal enforcement but rather the CIA agent’s status from an international law perspective, specifically humanitarian law. I further examine the role of CIA operatives from a moral perspective. Using the framework set up by Just War Theory I examine whether a CIA operative is regarded as a combatant or a civilian from a moral standpoint.

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.

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

This thesis explores the ethical and legal implications of targeted killing operations employingCombat Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (CUAVs), focusing on the practices of the United Statesand Israel. Grounded in Just War Theory and international law, the research critically examineshow both nations justify these operations under the principles of self-defence and nationalsecurity. Through a comparative analysis of specific case studies, such as the assassinations ofQasem Soleimani and Baha Abu Al Ata, the study highlights the complexities of balancingsecurity imperatives with adherence to international humanitarian and human rights laws. Thefindings reveal significant ethical tensions, particularly concerning the principles ofproportionality, distinction, and the risk of extrajudicial killings. The lack of transparency andaccountability in drone operations further complicates their legitimacy. Additionally, itadvocates for comprehensive policy and legal reforms to enhance oversight and regulation,ensuring compliance with international standards and ethical norms. This research aims tocontribute to the ongoing discourse on modern military practices, urging a more just andaccountable framework for the use of lethal force in contemporary conflicts.

Over the last two decades, the international community has taken on the task of rebuilding societies in the aftermath of mass-atrocities. Through a combination of trial and error and vigorous academic research, a relatively clear (and semi-malleable) blueprint of post-atrocity peacebuilding has developed. This includes setting up a temporary international transitional authority, establishing democracy, facilitating economic development, and holding war crime trials. Though there are volumes of studies which address the pragmatic strengths and weaknesses of these key elements of peacebuilding, to date political theorists have not critically analyzed the moral legitimacy of these policies. My thesis aims to fill this gap. The overarching question of this thesis is this: What moral duties does the international community have to post-atrocity societies? To answer this question, I critically examine the normative issues involved in the four key aspects of peacebuilding (identified above). Using the framework of just war theory and a cosmopolitan theory of fundamental human rights, I argue that, in most post-atrocity cases, the international community has duties to remove atrocity-committing regimes from power, occupy the target-state and act as a transitional authority, help facilitate the creation of democracy and economic development, and hold war crimes trials. These duties, of course, are extremely complicated and limited and these qualifications are examined and developed throughout. Running through the construction of my theory of post-atrocity duties is a clear message: we – the international community – have obligations to the victims and survivors of atrocities. In other words, providing assistance in the wake of mass-atrocities is not a supererogatory act of charity, rather, it is a duty which we owe to the victims of these horrible crimes.

The permissible use of defensive force is a central tenet of the traditional legal and philosophical justification for war and its practice. Just War Theory holds a nation’s right to resist aggressive attack with defensive force as the clearest example of a just cause for war. Just War Theory also stipulates norms for warfare derived from a conception of defensive force asserted to be consistent with the moral reality of war. Recently, these aspects of Just War Theory have been criticized. David Rodin has challenged the status of national defense as an uncontroversial just cause. Jeff McMahan has charged that Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare are inconsistent with the norms of permissive defensive force. In this thesis I defend the status of national defense as a clear case of a just cause. However, my defense may require revision of Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare.

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. / 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.