The Principle of Double Effect has served as a guide for both statesmen and soldiers since the middle ages in determining which acts in war are morally permissible and which are not. It is used, in particular, by those who make their moral decisions on the basis of certain moral rules that concern the moral consequences of action. This Principle of Double Effect (hereafter referred to as PDE) comes into play in situations where an agent has the option of performing an act with both good and bad consequences. Advocates of PDE believe that it is morally significant whether a bad consequence is intended by the agent or merely forseen as incidental to an act that is in all other respects morally acceptable.^ Of great interest to moral philosophers discussing acts of war is how this principle applies to the deaths of persons not directly involved in the prosecution of the war. Proponents of the PDE claim that while it is morally impermissible to intentionally bring about the deaths of innocent people during combat, either as a means to a military objective or as a goal in itself, it is permissible under certain circumstances for an agent to choose a course of action which may bring about the deaths of innocent people as a forseeable consequence.

Ou Antony. / Thesis submitted in: October 2006. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 160-173). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / List of Appendices and Tables --- p.5 / Preface and Acknowledgements --- p.6 / Notes on Translations and References --- p.9 / Abstract --- p.11 / 中文摘要(Abstract in Chinese) --- p.12 / Chapter Chapter 1: --- Introduction --- p.13 / Chapter Chapter 2: --- "War, Confucianism and Ren: The Definitions" --- p.17 / Chapter Chapter 2.1: --- The Definition of War --- p.17 / Chapter Chapter 2.2: --- Confucianism: A Brief History of Thoughts --- p.20 / Chapter Chapter 2.3: --- Ren as Confucian Justice of war --- p.26 / Chapter Chapter 3: --- Literature Review --- p.34 / Chapter Chapter 3.1: --- Purposes of Just War Theory --- p.34 / Chapter Chapter 3.2: --- Just War Theory Development: Anglo-American Traditions --- p.38 / Chapter Chapter 3.21: --- The History --- p.38 / Chapter Chapter 3.22: --- "The Content: jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum" --- p.44 / Chapter Chapter 3.23: --- A Synthetic Analysis of Anglo-American Just War Tradition --- p.56 / Chapter Chapter 3.3: --- Just War Theory: Neo-Confucian approaches --- p.59 / Chapter Chapter 3.4: --- Spring and Autumn and Gongyangzhuan --- p.66 / Chapter Chapter 3.41: --- Nature of Spring and Autumn --- p.66 / Chapter Chapter 3.42: --- History of Gongyangzhuan --- p.70 / Chapter Chapter 3.43: --- The Contents of Gongyangzhuan --- p.79 / Chapter Chapter 4: --- Gongyangzhuan tradition as a source of Confucian just war theory --- p.86 / Chapter Chapter 4.1: --- Criteria for selecting Confucian Texts --- p.86 / Chapter Chapter 4.2: --- Conceptualization of Gongyangzhuan just war theory --- p.92 / """Non-ideal just war scenario"": Feudal lords and peoples in ""chaotic generations""" --- p.95 / """Non-ideal just war scenario"": Ba/Hegemon, feudal lords and peoples in ""transitional generations""" --- p.106 / """Ideal just war scenario"": The True king and peoples in ´ب´ب peaceful generations""" --- p.114 / Chapter Chapter 4.3: --- Synthetic Analysis of Gongyangzhuan Just War Theory --- p.119 / Chapter Chapter 5: --- The Contemporary Significance of Gongyangzhuan Just War Theory --- p.123 / Chapter Chapter 5.1: --- Theoretical Significance --- p.125 / Contribution to just war theory --- p.125 / Contribution to Modern Neo-Confucianism --- p.129 / Chapter Chapter 5.2: --- Practical Significance --- p.131 / Chapter Chapter 6: --- Conclusion --- p.135 / Appendices --- p.140 / Bibliography --- p.160

No description available.

No description available.

Rules of engagement, ethics of war, and codes of chivalry are all phrases which remind one of human attempts to rein in and regulate what is perhaps the most anarchic and illogical of all human activities: organized war. The role of the great religions of the world both in propagating war through crusades and jihads as well as their attempts at transcending its savagery through images of miles Christianus or the pious ghazi has also been much discussed. The aim of this thesis is to study the ethics of war in the context of Islamic societies in the Early Middle Ages from several complementary perspectives. Our sources for the period vary greatly from decade to decade and from region to region. This has often led historians of ideas and mentalities to concentrate on one aspect to the exclusion of others. This is particularly so in the case of ethics of war where most of the argument seems to concentrate on a few passages from the Qur'an, supplemented by some quotations from manuals of ḥadith and commentaries on them in the legal textbooks of the different religious schools. That all these are crucial for an understanding of Muslim attitudes and reactions to war throughout centuries is beyond dispute. But it remains, nevertheless, a lop-sided view: neglecting large areas of debate and speculation in literature, philosophy, and mystical meditations, presented as fully-fledged arguments or as occasional remarks and observations embedded in the extant texts from the period. By evaluating these scattered sources and listening to the different voices heard through them, I hope to show some of the different attitudes and responses to the ethics of war and avoid the monolithic and doggedly timeless approach which, at its worst and most extreme, envisages a non-existing consensus among the Muslims from the rise of Islam to the beginning of this new century and neglects the evidence of regional traditions and innovative thinkers by relying solely on a handful of quotes.

Typescript (photocopy). / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

The exploitation and extermination of people in the context of internal conflict in the former Yugoslavia is a grave injustice and the result of a systematic policy of war by an unconventional state. Internal conflict requires investigation by international relations scholars because it is evidence of the changing nature of war. Given that both the methods of violence (ethnic cleansing, systematic/genocidal rape, and sexual torture) and (ethno)nationalism are gendered, a 'new' approach to war is needed. Traditional international relations theoretical approaches to the state, anarchy, and war/peace prove unable to analyze: one, the unconventional state (structure); two, the dichotomous separation of the public/international/external/formal/masculine/autonomous from the private/domestic/internal/informal/feminine/vulnerable; three, unconventional war policy; and four, the 'new' actors, the external and internal 'Others,' the 'Invisibles,' the noncombatants/ civilians, the 'women' (women and men; people with identities). Thinking that will lead to solutions for the dilemma of war, inclusively defined, will be - to employ Joy Kogawa's word - merciful; it will not exclude people and, while critical, it will be hopeful that the protection of both human dignity and community is in the 'national interest,' in 'our and their interest' as political/social/economic/etc. beings. Because it analyzes dichotomies and deals with the role of identity in the various aspects of (changing) war, a feminist or gendered/identity-deconstructivist approach is advanced as a means to more effectively examine internal/international conflicts, such as the former Yugoslav wars - i.e., unconventional wars whose character challenges the rigid traditionalist international relations definition of war.

The exploitation and extermination of people in the context of internal conflict in the former Yugoslavia is a grave injustice and the result of a systematic policy of war by an unconventional state. Internal conflict requires investigation by international relations scholars because it is evidence of the changing nature of war. Given that both the methods of violence (ethnic cleansing, systematic/genocidal rape, and sexual torture) and (ethno)nationalism are gendered, a 'new' approach to war is needed. Traditional international relations theoretical approaches to the state, anarchy, and war/peace prove unable to analyze: one, the unconventional state (structure); two, the dichotomous separation of the public/international/external/formal/masculine/autonomous from the private/domestic/internal/informal/feminine/vulnerable; three, unconventional war policy; and four, the 'new' actors, the external and internal 'Others,' the 'Invisibles,' the noncombatants/ civilians, the 'women' (women and men; people with identities). Thinking that will lead to solutions for the dilemma of war, inclusively defined, will be - to employ Joy Kogawa's word - merciful; it will not exclude people and, while critical, it will be hopeful that the protection of both human dignity and community is in the 'national interest,' in 'our and their interest' as political/social/economic/etc. beings. Because it analyzes dichotomies and deals with the role of identity in the various aspects of (changing) war, a feminist or gendered/identity-deconstructivist approach is advanced as a means to more effectively examine internal/international conflicts, such as the former Yugoslav wars - i.e., unconventional wars whose character challenges the rigid traditionalist international relations definition of war. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

For as long as humans have waged war, they have distinguished between combatant persons that are liable to attack, and protected persons that should enjoy immunity from attack. And for just as long, combatants have exploited such protected persons as "human shields." They have moved protected persons to military targets, and military targets to protected persons with designs as grand as thwarting the outbreak of war itself, and as narrow as deterring attacks within war. This dissertation explores two sets of questions about these strategies and tactics of "interposition," as I call them, at the intersection of international relations, law, and ethics. First: Whence the power of "human shields?" When and how can belligerents, somewhat paradoxically, find safety in exposure with unarmed persons? Under what conditions can noncombatants exposed at flanks, for instance, deny superiorly positioned ambushers, and captives tied to warehouses deny fleets of aircraft? Second: How do we evaluate harm to people deliberately placed in harm's way? And to what extent are our judgments consistent with prevailing prescriptive models from international law and ethics? In this dissertation, I argue that interposition leverages a peculiar kind of threat. And I attribute the force of this threat to its peculiarities, integrating theory from psychology, anthropology, sociology and evidence from detailed case studies, interviews with military commanders, lawyers and soldiers, and accounts from tens of conflicts across the centuries culled from chronicles, archives, and memoirs. The threat is of killing, of directly and foreseeably harming others, of being identified with killing, of being held liable for killing, of authorizing outrage, massacre and scandal. The threat is distinct because it leverages not a hesitancy to incur damage, which is well documented in the conflict literature, but to inflict damage. And it is under some conditions sufficient to deter and compel even the strongest armies to yield and desist. Moreover, I present suggestive experimental evidence demonstrating some degree of conformity between lay intuitions and prevailing international legal and ethical prescriptions on proportionality in war. Lay respondents to a survey-embedded conjoint experiment balanced military value and collateral damage in ways prescribed by mainstream prescriptive models from international law and ethics. In particular, subjects weighed harm to bystanders and involuntary shields the same, but discounted harm to voluntary shields. In sum, the dissertation illuminates prevalent but poorly understood patterns of conflict behavior, and sheds light on understudied aspects of moral and legal judgment about harm in war.

Bibliography: pages 264-277. / This thesis outlines a proposal from an explicitly religious standpoint of the key dimensions of peacebuilding, focusing particularly on mediation and facilitation as a primary task. What is the value of such a study? My initial responses in the paragraphs which follow are made at the broadest possible level: the desperate need for effective peacebuilders in a world torn by violence and the potential for religiously-based peacebuilders to fill that need. I then support this response by examining other reasons for the study: the current inadequacy of religious response to conflicts, the danger of manipulation of religious leadership by other actors, and potential for the insights of religiously-based actors to contribute to the over-all practice of peacebuilding and diplomacy. In addressing the latter question I outline my own understanding of the meaning of "religion", an understanding whose impact on the broad question of peacebuilding I explore throughout the chapters which follow.