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.

Since the end of the Cold War, traditional justifications for war have diminished in relevance and importance, while the use of Humanitarian Military Interventions (HMI) has proliferated, to the point that formerly traditional wars – e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq invasions – have become retroactively redefined as HMIs. While HMI suffers from a number of problems, from international law to historical track record, its proponents have managed to turn aside all arguments by claiming they represent either statistical outliers, improper implementation, or at best indicate a need for a certain degree of fine-tuning. Crucially, the validity of the HMI practice is never brought into question. In order to attempt to break this dialectic stalemate, this dissertation recasts HMI as a Kuhnian paradigm. Doing so provides for a better understanding of HMI as a holistic Weltanschauung, and allows the problems of HMI to be understood as anomalies. Unlike arguments, anomalies need not engage with every discrete position held by the paradigm. Instead, they serve as a direct demonstration of the untenability of a position, as evidenced by systemic failure to produce the desired results. Consequently, the paradigm approach allows for a binary resolution to the problems of HMI: either the anomalies can be explained by the paradigm, or the paradigm has failed. The present analysis begins with an examination of paradigms and their structures, and then follows the history and context of HMI is considered from a philosophical and historical perspectives. Then, the structure of HMI as a paradigm is unpacked, with the attendant ends, means, justifications, and implications. Finally, four categories of HMI anomalies are presented, leading to the conclusion that the HMI paradigm is a failed one.

The thesis critically assesses the decision-making process leading up to the acceptance of bill B 118 which approved Danish military action in the American-led multilateral coalition ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. The analysis will use coding through a qualitative content analysis to investigate the potential use and abuse of human rights framework by decision-makers, during this process. Theories of just war, activist military politics and the decision-making theory of perception and misperception are used to provide the foundation for the content analysis, as well as positioning the results in the context of the wider political sphere. Though the nature of the investigation does not allow for absolute conclusions, the findings demonstrated how human rights were indeed used as a tool of both persuasion in the hunt for support and as a means to legitimise actions.

No description available.

Due to the rapid technological advancements of the 21st century the fundamental nature of warfare has changed. Drones along with autonomous weapon systems has presented new challenges to the traditional concept and internal interpretations of just war theory. The purpose of this thesis is to present an analytical summary of the academic debate surrounding the emergence of AI technology, and how it has challenged the core principles embodied within jus in bello and jus ad bellum. Furthermore, the thesis explores the ethical issues external to just war theory principles, with a focus on how AI technology has established unique challenges for drone operators as a consequence of this contemporary phenomenon of war. This is done through a descriptive idea analysis and a critical analysis based on existing empirical material on the current academic debate on this issue.  While the advantages of drones and LAWS are evidently presented throughout this thesis, the repercussions are equally as important to contemplate. Thus, the findings in this thesis concludes that it is difficult to argue in favour or against the emergence of AI technology in war, as relevant arguments exist on both sides of the spectrum. However, the challenges for future just war theorists will be to adjust and reinterpret the moral foundations embodied within the principles of jus in bello and jus ad bellum to adhere to this contemporary phenomenon of war.

No description available.

Throughout the last decade wars have created a certain interest in reflection upon rights, justice and the causes for which people may or may not be killed. Soldiers are expected to make decisions about life and death in extremely difficult circumstances and complex situations during war. With conflicting obligations, they are forced to choose between orders, duty and ethical values in situations where not all can be met at the same time. Scholars in military ethics argues that ethical challenges and dilemmas can be overcome by using ethical reasoning processes such as moral judgement, moral competence and through different moral principles in the conduct of war. This study investigates how Swedish soldiers reason between moral dilemmas they might encounter in their professional practice and aims to explore if there is a conflict between their moral obligations and duty. It aims to improve the understanding of how Swedish soldiers justify the use of lethal force and obeying orders, and what underlying ethical and moral factors that affect their judgements and justifications. Qualitative scenario-based results show that their moral judgements are based foremost on consequentialist grounds, with good moral competence to adapt their judgements when faced with moral dilemmas. Subconsciously they follow the rules and moral principles of war, putting great emphasis on their trust and dependence on fellow soldiers as well as higher military bodies, although they are likely to disobey orders when it doesn’t seem morally justified.

The development and application of artificial intelligence (AI) for military purposes are increasing rapidly in many parts of the world. Military powers are driving programs aimed at the advantages that AI can generate. Simultaneously, ethical questions arise concerning autonomous military systems. This study aims to provide clarity on how future Swedish officers with different backgrounds within the profession relate to the ethical issues that accompany the use of autonomous weapon systems. In this study, the respondents are presented with two fictitious scenarios based on the principles of distinction and proportionality, describing ethically problematic attacks that affect civilians. In each scenario, respondents are asked to take a stance on attacks carried out with different degrees of autonomy. The results of the study show that future officers consider the ethical defensibility of an attack to decrease as the degree of autonomy in the weapon system used increases.

This thesis considers the issue of the Responsibility to Rebuild in International Law. It posits that the R2R must be re-elevated to significance as a conceptual, normative, and functional element of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), with its institutional homes in the United Nation’s framework and the Secretary-General’s function adequately articulated. In most instances, the 2009 three-pillar R2P framework functions effectively, but it has the flaw of burying and overlooking the critical value of the initial ICISS third pillar, the responsibility to rebuild and reconstruct war-ravaged communities’ threshold of viability and self-sufficiency. This thesis draws some crucial insight from the significant international interventions of the twenty-first century and recalling the scope in which R2P was first conceived to illustrate the unique characteristics of its contribution to global politics or international policy. This thesis addresses the question of who should rebuild after a war. The ‘Belligerents Rebuild Thesis,’ which suggests that those who have been engaged in the battle - including the victor, just belligerent, unjust aggressor, or humanitarian intervener - should be charged with the responsibility of rebuilding, is held by many leading proponents of the importance of jus post-Bellum for Just War Theory. On the other hand, this thesis argues that there is a mutual, international responsibility to rebuild that should be delegated solely based on the agent's capacity to rebuild rather than the belligerents. / Graduate / 2022-08-09

No description available.