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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One of the chief international security issues of today is humanitarian militaryintervention. In light of this, some questions have been raised about when and howoutsiders should get involved or if they are morally right at all to engage in humanitariancrises. In this paper Syria is the chosen case study because of its brutal crackdown and amassive human rights violation. The main purpose of this thesis is to understand themoral and legal criteria for launching a military intervention for humanitarian aid in Syriafollowed by a detailed analysis of its ethical, normative and legal issues. The maintheoretical framework of this study is just war theory. This study utilizes the criteria ofJus ad bellum principles, namely ‘legitimate authority’, ‘just cause’ and ‘right intention’in order to asses the extent to which Syria fits into the framework of just war theory. Thispaper also applies legal criteria such as the Charter of United Nations and internationallaw for the purpose of legal examination. The most complex issue in this thesis is the factthat although legitimate authority has the moral responsibilities to protect civilians, but itoften fails to uphold its responsibility mainly because of self-interest and the lack of rightintention.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal