Thesis advisor: Kenneth Himes / The category of jus post bellum (jpb, postwar justice and peace) is a welcome addition to discussions of the justice of war. The goal of this dissertation is to review the significance of this recent development within the just war tradition. This project is based on a proposition that just war should aim at just peace; peace does not mean the absence of armed conflict, but it requires the establishment of justice. There is no true peace if it exists for the strong but not for the weak, for the victor but not for the vanquished. At the heart of jpb is the establishment of a just peace. With this preliminary proposition in mind, this dissertation endeavors to challenge the view of those who argue that reconciliation, mainly political reconciliation, is the first and foremost ambition of jpb. Instead, it attempts to justify the proposition that achieving just policing, just punishment, and just political participation are key to building a just peace, of which the fundamental characteristic must be human security. In the immediate aftermath of war there is little or no policing, punishment, or avenues for political participation to protect the civilians of defeated states, especially the most vulnerable ones. Therefore, this project argues (i) that human security is a neglected theme in the discourse of moral and theological intellectual traditions; and (ii) that a more balanced understanding of jpb must pay direct attention to the elements comprising human security in a postwar context as well as the quest for reconciliation. In particular, holding a realistic view that war is inherently destructive of people, institutions, and infrastructure, this project focuses on justice in reconstruction—reconstruction of just policing, just punishment, and just political participation. This destruction raises questions about the fulfillment of justice in the damaged postwar society. Considering these issues through the lens of human security and political reconciliation theories, I propose my “maxim(um) of ethical minimalism” for jpb—the principle of achieving to the highest extent possible human security, which is the necessary and essential outcome for jpb. It is the norm for jpb of achieving the common good to the highest extent possible, with priority on human security, using nonviolent means insofar as possible and violent means when necessary. This proposal contends that determination of the content of the responsibilities for just war reconstruction should be specified on the basis of the damage to relationships that need to be not merely restored, but also fundamentally transformed in the postwar society that prevents future threats. This thesis pays particular attention to civil society peacebuilding, which needs to be considered only to the extent that it is an objective of the postwar discussion and to the extent it is affected by jpb decisions. Yet, my primary thesis is that this transformative vision of jpb should be distinguished from an extensive buildup of a civil society scheme, which requires a wider and longer range of peacebuilding efforts. Instead, it must be tempered by realism in a careful and concrete manner, since the priority should be given to human security in the immediate aftermath of war. This study is an exercise in applied political ethics that employs various disciplines—security studies, international law, and peacebuilding work—to address the topic of jpb as a means of illuminating the theological discourse. Plainly, I employ this literature to explore how contemporary scholars view the idea of jpb and how this relatively new development fits within the Christian tradition of just war, a moral tradition that is historically interdisciplinary. Further, this attempt is a valuable contribution to the just war tradition by identifying what I view as three key themes of jpb, namely, three practices that are essential to implementing jpb immediately after a war: just policing, just punishment, and just political participation. While examining the interrelated challenges of moral and social norms in both political and legal domains, this dissertation proposes an innovative methodology for linking theology, ethics, and social science so that the ideal and the real can inform each other in the ethics of war and peacebuilding. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2018. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Theology.

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.

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.

Submitted by Felipe Lapenda (felipe.lapenda@ufpe.br) on 2015-03-10T13:30:21Z No. of bitstreams: 2 DISSERTAÇÃO Arthur Almeida de Carvalho Curvelo.pdf: 20961220 bytes, checksum: ab3226cdbed2bfc0b7bef2c84c0b13f7 (MD5) license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: 66e71c371cc565284e70f40736c94386 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-10T13:30:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 DISSERTAÇÃO Arthur Almeida de Carvalho Curvelo.pdf: 20961220 bytes, checksum: ab3226cdbed2bfc0b7bef2c84c0b13f7 (MD5) license_rdf: 1232 bytes, checksum: 66e71c371cc565284e70f40736c94386 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-04-22 / Pró-Reitoria Estudantil da Universidade Federal de Alagoas ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas / Se a historiografia já tem dedicado alguma atenção a compreender as transformações políticas e sociais do post bellum (1654-1715) nos centros de governo da Capitania de Pernambuco (Olinda, Recife e seus termos), pouca, ou quase nenhuma, tem sido dada ao impacto dessas transformações nas outras vilas da Capitania, especialmente na parte meridional. Assim, procuramos investigar essas vicissitudes na vila de Santa Maria Madalena da Lagoa do Sul através de sua Câmara, instituição fundamental para o governo da vila e de seus termos, e que fomentou a formação e a representatividade de uma elite local. Através de uma comparação com as molduras governativas preexistentes à fundação da Câmara (nomeadamente a Alcaidaria-Mor e a Câmara de Escabinos) demonstramos que ela proveu as bases para a ampliação da autonomia da vila, fortalecida, no século XVIII com a criação da Comarca das Alagoas e a elevação ao estatuto de “cabeça da comarca”.

Quels rapports entretiennent le jus contra bellum et le jus in bello ?S’agit-il de deux corps de règles indépendants? Ou sont-ils au contraire influencés l’un par l’autre, comme certaines théories le professent de manière récurrente ?Dans la présente thèse, nous avons tenté de répondre à cette question et de clarifier certains aspects fondamentaux des relations entre ces deux corps de règles.<p><p>Dans la première partie, nous avons procédé à l’étude du principe de l’égalité des belligérants. Ce principe constitue la pierre angulaire de l’application des règles du DIH et proscrit toute invocation du jus contra bellum pour influencer l’application du jus in bello. Cela n’est pas évidemment sans poser de problèmes dans un ordre juridique dont une des règles fondamentales interdit le recours à la force. Ainsi, le principe de l’égalité des belligérants a fait l’objet de théories visant à remettre en cause son caractère absolu. Notre étude a montré qu’il n’en était rien. Le principe de l’égalité des belligérants est de nature coutumière et ne souffre pas d’exception. Ainsi, il incarne, dans sa forme la plus absolue, l’indépendance qui existe entre le jus contra bellum et le jus in bello. <p><p>La seconde partie de notre étude a eu pour objet de vérifier si cette indépendance pouvait également caractériser d’autres aspects des relations entre ces deux corps de règles, ou si on contraire, l’étanchéité entre ces deux branches du droit international n’était pas absolue. Ont été analysés, d’une part, les champs d’application ratione materiae et personae de ces corps de règles et, d’autre part, deux notions de fond qui sont considérées comme formant des « ponts » entre le jus contra bellum et le jus in bello :la nécessité et la proportionnalité. Ici encore, notre analyse confirme que l’indépendance constitue la caractéristique principale des relations entre le jus contra bellum et le jus in bello. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

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.

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.

This thesis examines why the south seceded in 1860 as opposed to any other time in the 19th century and what changed the mentalité of the people in the period 1857-1860. The underlying issue in southern politics and the issue of secession was clearly slavery and slavery rested on the economics of cotton. Yet slavery and cotton do not explain why the South seceded in 1860 and not at other times in the preceding seventy years. 1807 saw the outlawing of the international slave trade and 1819 saw Congress pass the Slave Trade Act interdicting the ships involved. In 1828 and 1832 the bitter tariff disputes between northern industrial and southern agricultural interests led to the South Carolina doctrine of “Nullification” but no secession. Neither the 1846 proposed Wilmot Proviso restricting slavery in the new territories nor the immediate post Mexican War disputes over the territorial expansion of slavery caused secession and in every case the South was willing to compromise. The methodology of this work is based on the assumption that words and thoughts are intimately linked and that by measuring changes in frequency of word use, changes in thought can be detected and measured. Evidence for the changing use word frequency was provided by an etymological and article content study of selected daily editions of six newspapers in the three cities. The thesis put forward to explain the change in political attitude is that for the southern cities of Richmond, Charleston and New Orleans, political power and political issues were the most important factors. The rise of the sectional northern Republican Party and fear of its abolitionist principles weighed more heavily than any other factors in altering the psychology of the South. This raised the political dispute over slavery to an issue of secession and potential military conflict.