The main thesis of my dissertation is that Kant has a just war theory, and it is universal just war theory, not a traditional just war theory. This is supported by first establishing the history of secular just war theory, specifically through a consideration of the work of Hugo Grotius, Rights of War and Peace. I take his approach, from a natural law perspective, as indicative of the just war theory tradition. I also offer a brief critique of this tradition, suggesting some issues that are endemic to these kinds of theories. From this general understanding, the version of Kant’s just war theory present in Brian Orend’s work War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective, is explored and rejected as another traditional just war theory. Orend attempts to shoehorn Kant into a tradition which Kant rejects as ineffective, and poorly grounded. Orend’s work is not without merit, and his view is reconceptualized in the last chapter. If not a traditional just war theory, then either a new category of just war theory needs to be established, or the thesis ought to be rejected. Thus, the next task is to defend against the claim that Kant does not have a just war theory at all, as claimed by Howard Williams in his work Kant and the End of War. This is rejected as insufficiently nuanced in its interpretation of Kant, and also for resulting in principles contrary to Kant’s moral theory. This view is also utilized in a new manner in the last chapter. Prior to describing the new category of just war theory, I consider the general approach Kant had to war. To do this, I explore his philosophical approach on ever more specific areas of philosophical investigation. I conclude that Kant has a dynamic and progressive understanding of the concepts he investigated, including philosophy, humanity, ethics, politics, and, eventually, war. In the penultimate chapter, I establish what I call a universal just war theory. I consider and name the traits of both a traditional just war theory and a universal just war theory, using Marxist Communism as an explanatory example of universal just war theory. This provides an intellectual space for Kant’s theory to reside, which is also consistent with his philosophical approach. The last chapter is devoted to the explanation and application of Kant’s universal just war theory. I offer an overarching principle for Kant’ view of conflict and defend it as a universal just war theory. I also revisit the place Orend and Williams views’ have in a proper understanding of Kant on just war. I end with an application of Kant’s universal just war theory to previous conflicts, as a demonstration of the practical value of this view. Thus, through first a negative argument against current conceptions of Kant’s views of just war theory, and then a positive argument for Kant’s general philosophical approach and a new category of just war theory, I offer an interpretation of Kant on just war theory. I argue this interpretation is superior to previous ones, and recommends real world applications for just war theorists to utilize.

In this thesis, I present examples of non-adherence to Just War Doctrine and challenge whether the theory ought to be adhered to at all. My research is based on nation to nation and nation to international actor wars and addresses all three tenets of the Just War Doctrine: Jus in bello, Jus ad bellum and Jus pos bello. My writings suggest that since Just War Theory has not been adhered to in entirety within the last 100 years, standing by the theory may, in itself, be irrelevant. This theory was created to make addressing, committing and ending war the gravest of all man's acts, so severe in nature that there is no room for error. In fact, during the research of this thesis, a war that was fought justly according to tradition was not found. And, because Just War Doctrine decreed that in order for a war to exist justly, all tenets must be followed, this thesis has provided considerable evidence that for the last 100 years Just War Doctrine has not been adhered to and with the changing dimensions of warfare by terrorists, state and rogue actors, and increased interconnectedness through Globalization, Just War may never be relevant as it was in the early years of establishment. / US Air Force (USAF) author.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [61-65]).

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 2000. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 68).

The history of the Church’s participation in, and attitudes towards warfare have been well-documented in several fields of research. The development of the doctrine of just war and the medieval crusades within Western Christianity, have been the subject of a considerable amount of scholarship. There has also recently been an increasing amount of research done by historians, theologians and political theorists comparing the status of warfare within the Christian and Islamic traditions. However, the current state of the historiography is focused almost entirely on Western Christianity, and does not address in any depth the attitudes toward warfare present in Eastern Christianity within the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages. This thesis seeks to address this historiographical imbalance by comparing the development of the Eastern and Western Church’s positions on warfare throughout the medieval period. The thesis examines the factors that led to the divergence of the two Churches’ attitudes towards warfare, and the development and impact of their differing theologies during the medieval period. It is argued that the fundamental point of divergence between the Eastern and Western Church’s attitude to warfare is linguistic and theological in nature. The linguistic differences between the Greek and Latin Churches, led to different theological interpretive frameworks regarding the subject of warfare. These different fundamental theological assumptions would lead the two Churches down different developmental paths and would prevent the development or acceptance of Western theories of just war and holy war in the Eastern Church.

This work intends to be an application and understanding of the Christian just war tradition as it pertains to the actions of the United States government in Iraq. It includes a short history of the evolution of the tradition, the application and discussion of the three most controversial criterion, and a discussion of how the terror attacks on the World Trade Center may constitute a pre-emptive strike. Essentially, the piece endeavors to explore how untested, unseen dangers drive a government to act for the defense of its citizens and their way of life. The theory draws heavily on Michael Walzer’s invention of the concept of “supreme emergency” which allowed for exceptional actions during war if a people’s entire way of life is threatened.

Thesis (Th.M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [61-65]).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 91-99).

Thesis (Ph. L.)--Catholic University of America, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 77-78).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Kentucky, 2004. / Title from document title page (viewed Oct. 12, 2004). Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 263-274). Also available via the Internet.