Redan tidigt uppstod etiska och trosmässiga dilemman bland de kristna kring hur Jesu budskap, likt t. ex. Bergspredikan, ordagrant skulle tolkas och efterlevas. Även i andra texter och utsagor har dessa frågeställningar periodvis aktualiserats, och under olika skeenden problematiseras under historiens gång. Frågor som kommer behandlas är hur man ställer sig till utsagor om fred och våld / ickevåld. Vilka föreställningar rent generellt finner vi i antikens tankevärld, judendomen, tiden runt Jesus, och den första tidens kyrka fram till reformationen, och hur förstår vi temat idag? I vilken utsträckning tillåter källan, d.v.s. de utvalda bibeltexterna att man får använda våld, och vilken funktion fyller det i sådant fall, och i vilken utsträckning får det användas? I samband med detta kommer frågor kring legitimitet att diskuteras, samt belysa förhållningssätt till olika former av överhet och auktoritet. / Ethical and faith-related dilemmas arose early among Christians concerning the message of Jesus, for example in the Sermon on the Mount, and how it should be literally interpreted and enforced. In other texts and statements, these issues were periodically brought up, and under varying circumstances problematized throughout history. Questions that will be addressed are how one relates to statements about peace and violence / nonviolence. Which concepts are generally found in the world of thought of antiquity, Judaism, the time of Jesus, and the early years of the church up until the reformation, and how do we understand the topics today? To what extent does the source allow, i. e. the selected Bible texts, that you may use force, and what function does it fulfill in such a case, and to what extent can it be used? Examining this, questions about the legitimacy will be discussed, and illustrate different approaches to authorities and authority.

The main thesis of my dissertation is that Kant has a just war theory, and it is universal just war theory, not a traditional just war theory. This is supported by first establishing the history of secular just war theory, specifically through a consideration of the work of Hugo Grotius, Rights of War and Peace. I take his approach, from a natural law perspective, as indicative of the just war theory tradition. I also offer a brief critique of this tradition, suggesting some issues that are endemic to these kinds of theories. From this general understanding, the version of Kant’s just war theory present in Brian Orend’s work War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective, is explored and rejected as another traditional just war theory. Orend attempts to shoehorn Kant into a tradition which Kant rejects as ineffective, and poorly grounded. Orend’s work is not without merit, and his view is reconceptualized in the last chapter. If not a traditional just war theory, then either a new category of just war theory needs to be established, or the thesis ought to be rejected. Thus, the next task is to defend against the claim that Kant does not have a just war theory at all, as claimed by Howard Williams in his work Kant and the End of War. This is rejected as insufficiently nuanced in its interpretation of Kant, and also for resulting in principles contrary to Kant’s moral theory. This view is also utilized in a new manner in the last chapter. Prior to describing the new category of just war theory, I consider the general approach Kant had to war. To do this, I explore his philosophical approach on ever more specific areas of philosophical investigation. I conclude that Kant has a dynamic and progressive understanding of the concepts he investigated, including philosophy, humanity, ethics, politics, and, eventually, war. In the penultimate chapter, I establish what I call a universal just war theory. I consider and name the traits of both a traditional just war theory and a universal just war theory, using Marxist Communism as an explanatory example of universal just war theory. This provides an intellectual space for Kant’s theory to reside, which is also consistent with his philosophical approach. The last chapter is devoted to the explanation and application of Kant’s universal just war theory. I offer an overarching principle for Kant’ view of conflict and defend it as a universal just war theory. I also revisit the place Orend and Williams views’ have in a proper understanding of Kant on just war. I end with an application of Kant’s universal just war theory to previous conflicts, as a demonstration of the practical value of this view. Thus, through first a negative argument against current conceptions of Kant’s views of just war theory, and then a positive argument for Kant’s general philosophical approach and a new category of just war theory, I offer an interpretation of Kant on just war theory. I argue this interpretation is superior to previous ones, and recommends real world applications for just war theorists to utilize.

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.

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.

The fundamental elements that shaped and gave rise to Christianity as a dominant religious movement rest in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Had there been no crucifixion and had Jesus died a natural death, there would be no foundation for the Christian gospel as we have it today. Jesus had to die a violent death and be a human sacrifice in order for him to be a historical figure that he is today. My point in departure is to highlight that the events that constitute history are in many aspects very violent in nature. Therefore, it may not be a great exaggeration to conclude that the shedding and spilling of blood is necessary in the making of history, since war and history are so joined together like Siamese twins. War is so much part of our lives, it is said that only the dead have seen the end of it. And history according to James Joyce, is a nightmare from which [he is] trying to awake. Such has been the explicit nature of Just War Theory as it is rooted in the backdrop of Christian conviction. This thesis seeks to illuminate the topic of Just War Theory from a Church and Augustinian perspective. It demonstrates how Augustine’s writings are a rich resources for theological, political and judicial reflection on international politics. It critically examines the connection between Church and State, that is to say, the origins of the Just War Theory. Further, it goes on to demonstrate that for Augustine the two are intertwined and God ordained. It draws conclusions for current Just War practices as outdated since its failure to attain world-peace. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2015. / tm2015 / Church History and Church Policy / MA / Unrestricted

Obemannade flygfarkoster har varit omtalat sedan kriget mot terrorn startade 11 september 2001 och det förekommer fortfarande frågor kring hur systemet nyttjas och om det är moraliskt korrekt. Det finns många användningsområden för farkosterna som exempelvis lägesuppfattning, sökandet av försvunna personer, attackuppdrag med flera. Studien undersöker hur farkosterna används inom attackföretag samt den militära nyttan av systemet. Eftersom det finns olika uppfattningar kring hur systemet används i krig och konflikt så kommer studien att redogöra för olika uppfattningar samt att konkretisera dessa. Det moraliska synsättet på Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle, UCAV, i konflikt och krig skiljer sig åt. De som talar emot systemet menar att detta i sig är hotet och inte hur det nyttjas. Andra menar att taktiken idag är densamma i konflikt och krig sedan 1960-talet. Detta användningsområde är därför inget nytt enligt de etiska teorierna gällande konflikt och krig. Tillämpningen av systemet har skapat att individer har en negativ uppfattning av det, medan andra ställer sig positiva. Enligt denna studie kan det anses moraliskt försvarbart att nyttja detta system om kriget eller konflikten uppfyller majoriteten av de sju kriterierna i rättfärdig krigsteori, Just War Theory. Dock spelar andra faktorer in för att starta ett krig vilket komplicerar eventuellt användande av systemet. Såsom nationens befolkning, dess intresse av kriget/konflikten, vilken grad hotet har och vilken nytta nationen får ut av konflikten eller kriget. Om tidigare nämnda exempel överensstämmer med nationens intresse kan det påstås vara moraliskt försvarbart att använda UCAV för attackföretag. / Unmanned aerial vehicles, popularly known as drones, have been up to debate since the start of the war on terror, 11th September 2001, and there are still a lot of questions about their use and moral legitimacy. There are a lot of useful applications for this kind of vehicle for example, situational awareness, searching for lost people and attack missions. This study is going to investigate how these vehicles are being used within attack missions and and what their military utility are. Since there are a lot of different opinions on the system in war and conflict, the aim for this study is to make the ethics more concrete and evaluate what military utility this system gives. The moral aspects of UCAV, Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle, in conflict and war differ a lot from person to person. Those who are against this kind of system mean that the UCAV, in itself, is a threat and not as much to how it is used. Supporters of the system, on the other hand, argue that similar tactics have been used in war since the 1960s hence the system does not need any change in ethics and morals. However the system has got a negative reputation because of they way it is being used. This study shows that it is morally right to use UCAVs when the conflict or war meets a majority of the seven criteria of Just War Theory. However it is not as simple as that, there are a lot more factors that come in play. The population of the nation and its interests in the conflict or war, the threat level and what kind of profit the nation will acquire through it are important factors. If all of these criteria are met then the use of UCAVs for attack missions can be seen as morally just.

This study will focus on examining the probabilities of justifying military interventions. In order to conduct this study, the U.S. will be the subject of interest. The paper will discuss and analyze the case of justifying an intervention by the U.S. in Syria. The analysis will be based on the Just War Theory by the medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas. To be able to conduct this study, official statements by the US government will be used to understand their reasoning concerning the subject. Mainly, statements will from the current and former heads of state, the American presidents, be analyzed. In the analysis of the paper, the criteria of the Just War Theory will be applied to the U.S. case with the objective to determine if the statements could justify an intervention. The outcome of Discussion and Conclusion reached the result that it would be justifiable for the U.S. to intervene in Syria. However, it becomes clear that the question of legitimate warfare and interventions are more complex than expected.

This paper sets itself upon analyzing the Iraq War of 2003 through the lens of modern Just War Theory. We will begin with a curt summary of Iraq’s history, focusing particularly on its determinedly odious leader, Saddam Hussein. Thereon, we will be analyzing a pro-war security argument, the aim of which is to assess the threat of Hussein’s weaponry ambitions and what that threat meant to the world. Next, we will be going over the tenets of Just War Theory itself, tracing its history from Rome to the modern doorstep, and applying the security argument to its dictum. Afterwards, we move into the anti-war segment and shall unpack the subject of Iraq's oil resources and whether or not the United States' actions disqualify the intervention from achieving Just War status. Then, our next section shall be addressing the same question of potential disqualification, only this time from the angle of the war’s questionable legality. Finally, we shall conclude on the ultimate query of this paper: was the U.S. decision to intervene in 2003’s Iraq compatible with the modern principles of Just War Theory?

The purpose of this study is to examine the utility of a just war explanation in understanding Canada’s decision to enter into the war in Afghanistan. It examines Canada’s three phases of the war under the lens of jus ad bellum. The concentration is upon jus ad bellum’s core criteria of legitimate authority, public declaration of intent, just cause, last resort, reasonable chance of success and proportionality and then applies it to the three phases. By examining Canada’s international role, paying close attention to Canada’s association with the UN, NATO and its ally status with the United State are important explanations of why Canada entered into the Afghanistan war. This analysis strives to provide a holistic comprehension by exploring the utility of an ignored body of explanation and extrapolates from this analysis the contemporary use of jus ad bellum.