Thèse (Ph. D.)--Université Laval, 2002. / Titre de l'éran-titre (visionné le 25 mars 2004). Bibliogr.

Reproduction de : Thèse d'exercice : Pharmacie : Nantes : 2009. / Bibliogr.

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. 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. 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.

Abstract Is it possible to create a more inclusive citizenship? The main objective of this essay is to explore the different possible ways of how to create a more inclusive society and citizenship based on the two principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis and how these principles are connected to the question of distributive justice. The method used is primarily a qualitative text analysis of academic literature. Theories in the field of political science such as theories of justice, theories of democracy- and citizenship have been implemented in the essay to achieve a more complete analysis of possible ways to create a more inclusive citizenship. The result of this research was that with inclusion follows exclusion and that it is impossible to create an inclusive citizenship from neither principles nor content. Citizenship is a human right according to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many theorists agree on that with citizenship there should also be freedom, rights and obligations. Therefore, a part of the study will examine how large a roll the state should play in terms of positive and negative freedom. To illustrate how the two priciples and the citizenship content can be used in real life, two contries will demonstrate how citizenship can be used in practice. The two contries are Sweden and the United States of America. The conclusion is that how to become a citizen and the question of justice are intimately connected, but that the puzzle of inclusion and exclusion can not be finally solved within the nation state. Keywords: Citizenship, Inclusion, Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, Rights, Duties,

Modern warfare in general, and targeted killing (TK) in particular, challenge conventional legal paradigms. While some contend that targeted killing is a clear violation of law, others argue that it is the law that should adapt to its modern context. In this thesis, I argue in favor of the latter. I will first explain the two dominant paradigms through which one can interpret TK: law enforcement versus armed conflict, going on to argue that an armed conflict paradigm can be legitimately invoked. In sections IV and V, I examine the rights and status of targeted individuals in modern conflict. I will then explore Jeremy Waldron’s objection to TK—that its potential for abuse outweighs its utility. I conclude by arguing that TK, like all warfare, is justified only by the unacceptability of its alternative, and that the justification of all warfare abides under the same pragmatic presumption.

JORDÃO, Marco Aurélio de Medeiros. A guerra justa no liberalismo político de John Rawls. 2008. 97f. – Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Federal do Ceará, Programa de Pós-graduação em Linguística, Fortaleza (CE), 2008. / Submitted by Gustavo Daher (gdaherufc@hotmail.com) on 2017-10-02T16:05:24Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2008_dis_mamjordao.pdf: 548126 bytes, checksum: 22ae5d3c543b79e0505bea3a2c50c387 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Márcia Araújo (marcia_m_bezerra@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-10-04T15:42:28Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2008_dis_mamjordao.pdf: 548126 bytes, checksum: 22ae5d3c543b79e0505bea3a2c50c387 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-04T15:42:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2008_dis_mamjordao.pdf: 548126 bytes, checksum: 22ae5d3c543b79e0505bea3a2c50c387 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 / This work intends to study the concept of just war from an analysis of the political international philosophy of the American philosopher John Rawls. We will take like base the work Law of People (2001), and will retake some basic concepts of too many works, in special A Theory of the Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). Our objective in this dissertation is to examine two questions: I) How the principle of justice of the international right of Rawls, justify a military intervention? II) Are there cases in which to do a war it is morally legitimize? Our star point is from the general concept of war and will present the thought of four authors paradigmatic what boarded this subject, and they are: Voltaire and his humane vision of bases Illuminists; Kant and his project of perpetual peace; Clausewitz and the war as exceptional case of the politics; Carl Schmitt and the concept of political and binomial friend – enemy. The concepts what we will board in Rawls are: a)the concept of political liberalism and the idea of pluralism and tolerance what they are harnessed to him; b) The conception of traditional liberalism and the difference of his political liberalism; c) The idea of original position, essential notion to understand why the war is just when is only made of “society of the people”. Finally, we will investigate the questions from the recovering that Rawls does from the concept of Jus ad Bellum, what in an immediate translation is it Justice of the war, and therefore, answers which motives of going away to war. And Jus in Bello, whose translation would be a justice in waging war, in other words, which moral behaviour what the soldier must adopt in struggle. / Esse trabalho tem como objetivo estudar o conceito de guerra justa, a partir de uma análise da filosofia política internacional do filósofo americano John Rawls. Tomaremos como base à obra Direito dos Povos (2001), e retomaremos alguns conceitos básicos das demais obras, em especial Uma Teoria da Justiça (1971) e Liberalismo Político (1993). O nosso objetivo nessa dissertação é examinar duas questões, a saber: I) Segundo os princípios de justiça do direito internacional de Rawls, se pode justificar uma intervenção militar? II) Existem casos em que fazer uma guerra é moralmente legitimo? Partiremos do conceito geral de guerra e apresentaremos o pensamento de quatro autores paradigmáticos que abordaram esse tema, são eles: Voltaire e sua visão humanitária de bases Iluministas; Kant e seu projeto de paz perpétua; Clausewitz e a guerra como caso excepcional da política; e Carl Schmitt e o conceito do político e o binômio amigo – inimigo. Os conceitos que abordaremos em Rawls são: a) o de liberalismo político e a idéia de pluralismo e tolerância a eles atrelados; b) A concepção de liberalismo abrangente e o porque esse se diferencia do seu liberalismo político; c) A idéia de posição original, noção essencial para entender como se dará à sociedade dos povos e por que a guerra só é justa quando travada por essa sociedade específica. Finalmente, investigaremos essas perguntas a partir da retomada que Rawls faz de dois conceitos, a saber, Jus ad Bellum, isto é, justiça do guerrear, e do Jus in Bello, que em uma tradução imediata significa justiça no guerrear, ou seja, qual o comportamento moral que o soldado deve adotar em luta.

No description available.

No description available.

FundaÃÃo Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Cientifico e TecnolÃgico / Esse trabalho tem como objetivo estudar o conceito de guerra justa, a partir de uma anÃlise da filosofia polÃtica internacional do filÃsofo americano John Rawls. Tomaremos como base à obra Direito dos Povos (2001), e retomaremos alguns conceitos bÃsicos das demais obras, em especial Uma Teoria da JustiÃa (1971) e Liberalismo PolÃtico (1993). O nosso objetivo nessa dissertaÃÃo à examinar duas questÃes, a saber: I) Segundo os princÃpios de justiÃa do direito internacional de Rawls, se pode justificar uma intervenÃÃo militar? II) Existem casos em que fazer uma guerra à moralmente legitimo? Partiremos do conceito geral de guerra e apresentaremos o pensamento de quatro autores paradigmÃticos que abordaram esse tema, sÃo eles: Voltaire e sua visÃo humanitÃria de bases Iluministas; Kant e seu projeto de paz perpÃtua; Clausewitz e a guerra como caso excepcional da polÃtica; e Carl Schmitt e o conceito do polÃtico e o binÃmio amigo â inimigo. Os conceitos que abordaremos em Rawls sÃo: a) o de liberalismo polÃtico e a idÃia de pluralismo e tolerÃncia a eles atrelados; b) A concepÃÃo de liberalismo abrangente e o porque esse se diferencia do seu liberalismo polÃtico; c) A idÃia de posiÃÃo original, noÃÃo essencial para entender como se darà à sociedade dos povos e por que a guerra sà à justa quando travada por essa sociedade especÃfica. Finalmente, investigaremos essas perguntas a partir da retomada que Rawls faz de dois conceitos, a saber, Jus ad Bellum, isto Ã, justiÃa do guerrear, e do Jus in Bello, que em uma traduÃÃo imediata significa justiÃa no guerrear, ou seja, qual o comportamento moral que o soldado deve adotar em luta. / This work intends to study the concept of just war from an analysis of the political international philosophy of the American philosopher John Rawls. We will take like base the work Law of People (2001), and will retake some basic concepts of too many works, in special A Theory of the Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). Our objective in this dissertation is to examine two questions: I) How the principle of justice of the international right of Rawls, justify a military intervention? II) Are there cases in which to do a war it is morally legitimize? Our star point is from the general concept of war and will present the thought of four authors paradigmatic what boarded this subject, and they are: Voltaire and his humane vision of bases Illuminists; Kant and his project of perpetual peace; Clausewitz and the war as exceptional case of the politics; Carl Schmitt and the concept of political and binomial friend â enemy. The concepts what we will board in Rawls are: a)the concept of political liberalism and the idea of pluralism and tolerance what they are harnessed to him; b) The conception of traditional liberalism and the difference of his political liberalism; c) The idea of original position, essential notion to understand why the war is just when is only made of âsociety of the peopleâ. Finally, we will investigate the questions from the recovering that Rawls does from the concept of Jus ad Bellum, what in an immediate translation is it Justice of the war, and therefore, answers which motives of going away to war. And Jus in Bello, whose translation would be a justice in waging war, in other words, which moral behaviour what the soldier must adopt in struggle.

Questions regarding responsibilities in war are deeply related to moral discussions. Just war theory is a theory developed in order to categorize in which ways a war can be performed to be as just as possible. The theory was primarily divided into two dimensions: jus ad bellum and jus in bello which focuses on the reasons for going to war and the execution of the war. In recent years a third component to the theory has been discussed which incorporates the responsibilities after a war has been terminated, also known as jus post bellum. In this essay, just war theory is applicable to NATO:s invasion, Operation Unified Protector (OUP), of Libya during the civil war in 2011. In order to do so, a qualitative study has been chosen as methodology based on primary and secondary sources. By analyzing NATO:s actions from a just war perspective, the results present that the invasion was just based on jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The jus post bellum dimension did, in this case study, weaken OUP from a just war perspective as very few post war measures were implemented and sustainable peace did not arise after the operation ended.