Obemannade flygfarkoster har varit omtalat sedan kriget mot terrorn startade 11 september 2001 och det förekommer fortfarande frågor kring hur systemet nyttjas och om det är moraliskt korrekt. Det finns många användningsområden för farkosterna som exempelvis lägesuppfattning, sökandet av försvunna personer, attackuppdrag med flera. Studien undersöker hur farkosterna används inom attackföretag samt den militära nyttan av systemet. Eftersom det finns olika uppfattningar kring hur systemet används i krig och konflikt så kommer studien att redogöra för olika uppfattningar samt att konkretisera dessa. Det moraliska synsättet på Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle, UCAV, i konflikt och krig skiljer sig åt. De som talar emot systemet menar att detta i sig är hotet och inte hur det nyttjas. Andra menar att taktiken idag är densamma i konflikt och krig sedan 1960-talet. Detta användningsområde är därför inget nytt enligt de etiska teorierna gällande konflikt och krig. Tillämpningen av systemet har skapat att individer har en negativ uppfattning av det, medan andra ställer sig positiva. Enligt denna studie kan det anses moraliskt försvarbart att nyttja detta system om kriget eller konflikten uppfyller majoriteten av de sju kriterierna i rättfärdig krigsteori, Just War Theory. Dock spelar andra faktorer in för att starta ett krig vilket komplicerar eventuellt användande av systemet. Såsom nationens befolkning, dess intresse av kriget/konflikten, vilken grad hotet har och vilken nytta nationen får ut av konflikten eller kriget. Om tidigare nämnda exempel överensstämmer med nationens intresse kan det påstås vara moraliskt försvarbart att använda UCAV för attackföretag. / Unmanned aerial vehicles, popularly known as drones, have been up to debate since the start of the war on terror, 11th September 2001, and there are still a lot of questions about their use and moral legitimacy. There are a lot of useful applications for this kind of vehicle for example, situational awareness, searching for lost people and attack missions. This study is going to investigate how these vehicles are being used within attack missions and and what their military utility are. Since there are a lot of different opinions on the system in war and conflict, the aim for this study is to make the ethics more concrete and evaluate what military utility this system gives. The moral aspects of UCAV, Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle, in conflict and war differ a lot from person to person. Those who are against this kind of system mean that the UCAV, in itself, is a threat and not as much to how it is used. Supporters of the system, on the other hand, argue that similar tactics have been used in war since the 1960s hence the system does not need any change in ethics and morals. However the system has got a negative reputation because of they way it is being used. This study shows that it is morally right to use UCAVs when the conflict or war meets a majority of the seven criteria of Just War Theory. However it is not as simple as that, there are a lot more factors that come in play. The population of the nation and its interests in the conflict or war, the threat level and what kind of profit the nation will acquire through it are important factors. If all of these criteria are met then the use of UCAVs for attack missions can be seen as morally just.

Thesis (MA)--University of Stellenbosch, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: What does it mean that the violence of aggression could justify the violence of resistance? What does such justification accomplish, and when, and how? What underlies the conditions and limitations of justified violence, as, for example, these have been formulated in western doctrines of "just war"? Most critically, how could one think about the possibility of a resistance to evil that would be effective without itself instituting further violence? The theoretical ground of this investigation is found in a close reading of the work of Emmanuel Levinas, specifically the section of his Otheruiise than Being, or Beyond Essence in which human consciousness is shown to be, from the first, called to justice in responsibility for others. For Levinas, to be a subject is to be always already for-the-other as a substitute or hostage. This is both a persecution and the "glory" of human being. Thus Levinas introduces an enigmatic "good violence" prior to any distinction between aggressive and just violences. The idea of an originary good violence opens up a reconsideration of the evil of aggression and the joyfulness of resistance. This in turn shows the instability or equivocation of just violence: even if it is inspired by goodness - by one's responsibility for the useless suffering of others - it is never finally good enough, and always at risk of slipping into injustice. The responsibility of a "just warrior" is thus not cancelled by the justness of the cause. The justness of the cause indeed demands ever greater responsibility, even for and before one's enemy. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Wat sou dit kon beteken dat die geweld van aggressie die geweld van verset regverdig? Wat word bewerkstellig deur sodanige regverdiging, en wanneer, en . hoe? Waarop berus die voorwaardes en beperkinge van geregverdigde geweld, soos dit byvoorbeeld geformuleer is in Westerse leerstellings oor "regverdige oorlog"? Nog belangriker: hoe kan 'n mens dink oor die moontlikheid van verset teen die bose wat effektief is, maar sonder om self verdere geweld daar te stel? Die teoretiese grondslag van hierdie ondersoek is 'n nougesette bestudering van die werk van Emmanuel Levinas, meer spesifiek die afdeling van sy Otherwise than Being, or Beyond Essence, waarin hy argumenteer dat die menslike bewussyn van meet af aan tot geregtigheid opgeroep word in verantwoordelikheid vir andere. Om 'n subjek te wees is vir Levinas om altyd alreeds vir-dié-ander te wees as 'n plaasvervanger of gyselaar. Dit is sowel 'n vervolging as die "heerlikheid" van menswees. Levinas argumenteer dus ten gunste van 'n "goeie geweld" voorafgaande aan enige onderskeidinge tussen aggressiewe en geregverdigde geweld. Die idee van 'n oorspronklike goeie geweld maak 'n herdenking van die boosheid van agressie en die vreugdevolheid van verset moontlik. Op sy beurt toon dit die onstabiliteit of dubbelsinnigheid van geregverdigde geweld: selfs al word dit geïnspireer deur goedheid - deur 'n mens se verantwoordelikheid vir die nuttelose lyding van ander - is dit nooit goed genoeg nie en loop dit altyd die gevaar om om te slaan in onreg. Die verantwoordelikheid van 'n "regverdige vegter" word daarom nie uitgekanselleer deur die regverdigheid van sy saak nie. Die regverdigheid van die saak eis trouens nog groter verantwoordelikheid, selfs vir en vóór jou vyand.

Should U.S. political decision-makers decide to wage a moral war, it is not as easy a merely saying go do it. To ensure moral targeting decisions, American national political leaders must suffer the costs of monitoring in terms of time and money, and provide not only detailed direction, but also constant oversight to ensure objectives are clear and subordinates carry out directions. Military officers must ensure that their motivations align with those of their principals, and they must ensure that constraining doctrine for planning and executing combat operations is followed. Having satisfied these variables, moral targeting decisions, wherein proportionality of non-combatant casualties is weighed against target necessity, should then be easily attainable. The process of aligning motivations with respect to desired outcomes, and the process of planning strategies according to doctrine together lead to moral targeting decisions. By following the processes of getting war plans approved according to published U.S. doctrine, a deliberate dialogue is followed with direction and feedback through several steps of planning and approval that result in multiple people working on a product that results in a sort of corporate buy- in. I posit that it is difficult to follow this process and end up with targeting decisions that do not weigh harm to non-combatants against the necessity of individual targets, especially when principals and agents come together to deliberately ensure they align their motivations with respect to objectives. This theory is applicable to U.S. involvement in war, but is not necessarily generalizable to other countries. Through case studies of American involvement in Desert Storm (the first Gulf War), Operation Allied Force (NATOs air war over Serbia), and the U.S. War on Terror (campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq), I find that only in the War on Terror were moral targeting decisions consistently made by US national leaders. Furthermore, that was the only case study wherein both constraining doctrine was present and principal-agent motivations were aligned with respect to objectives. The other two cases showed that the variables were not followed and proportionality- necessity decisions were not made.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited / In response to the 9/11 attacks and continuing threats of mass-casualty terrorism, the United States has adopted a new security strategy that emphasizes anticipatory actions including preventive war. Prevention, undertaken in the absence of an act of aggression or an imminent threat, is prohibited by modern conceptions of just war and international law. Many critics of the strategy fear that any legitimization of preventive war would endanger international stability. But an examination of the relevant ethical issues from the perspective of just war doctrine reveals contradictions within a blanket prohibition of preventive war. Preventive "strategic interventions" against illiberal regimes-states that correlate with the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction-parallel humanitarian interventions in that they have an ethical basis in the relationship between human rights and the right of state sovereignty. A widely-accepted minimum standard of human rights, incorporated into new international institutions and/or an explicit revision of the definition of just war, could serve as an ethical boundary for both preventive wars and humanitarian interventions. The formal qualification of prevention and its merger with humanitarian goals could bring enhanced international legitimacy and support to preventive actions by the United States and its allies. / Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy

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.

This study will focus on examining the probabilities of justifying military interventions. In order to conduct this study, the U.S. will be the subject of interest. The paper will discuss and analyze the case of justifying an intervention by the U.S. in Syria. The analysis will be based on the Just War Theory by the medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas. To be able to conduct this study, official statements by the US government will be used to understand their reasoning concerning the subject. Mainly, statements will from the current and former heads of state, the American presidents, be analyzed. In the analysis of the paper, the criteria of the Just War Theory will be applied to the U.S. case with the objective to determine if the statements could justify an intervention. The outcome of Discussion and Conclusion reached the result that it would be justifiable for the U.S. to intervene in Syria. However, it becomes clear that the question of legitimate warfare and interventions are more complex than expected.

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

Typescript (photocopy). / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Os estudos da obra de Hugo Grotius apontam a sua importância para a constituição de um conceito moderno de direito natural. A análise do conteúdo de suas principais obras políticas, De Jure Praedae Commentarius e De Jure Belli ac Pacis, permitiu a identificação de noções inspiradas no estoicismo e no ecletismo romano, principalmente de Sêneca e Cícero, sobretudo no que diz respeito ao direito natural. Além disso, a abordagem jusnaturalista do autor serve de base para fundamentar seus argumentos em defesa da possibilidade de se empreender uma guerra justa. Deste modo, uma análise do direito natural grociano requer a reflexão sobre estes dois aspectos. Com vistas a compreender a origem dos conceitos de lei natural e direito natural e as consequências que Grotius retira deles, a presente dissertação investigou a possível influência estoica e eclética na concepção de direito natural formulada por Groitus e o vínculo existente entre esta formulação e a teoria grociana da guerra e da pena. / Studies of Hugo Grotius\'s work suggest its relevance for the constitution of a modern concept of natural law. The analysis of the content of his main political works, De Jure Praedae Commentarius and De Jure Belli ac Pacis, opened space for the identification of concepts inspired by the Roman stoicism and eclecticism, specially from Seneca and Cicero, mainly regarding the natural law. Moreover, the author\'s jusnaturalistic approach serves as a base to support his arguments in defence of the possibility to wage a just war. Therefore, an analysis of the Grotian natural law requires a reflection upon these two aspects. Aiming at comprehending the origin of the concepts of natural law and natural rights and the consequences Grotius retrieves from them, the present dissertation investigates a possible stoic and eclectic infuence on the conception of natural rights formulated by Grotius and the link between this formulation and the Grotian\'s theory of war and punishment.

<p>This dissertation approaches the problem of war in Christian ethics through the lens of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Drawing upon memoirs, letters, sermons, and fieldwork, it shifts the focus of moral inquiry from theoretical positions on war (e.g., just war theory and pacifism) to the domain of everyday life and the ways that local Christians theologically frame and practically reason through conflict. I explore the 1996-1997 Rwandan refugee crisis through the voice of a Catholic survivor, Marie Béatrice Umutesi, and consider how her narrative challenges both just war interpretations of this violence and "bare life" readings of refugee experience. I then examine how the Catholic Church endured rebel occupation in the eastern city of Bukavu from 1998-2000, looking specifically at how Archbishop Emmanuel Kataliko's Christological reading of the situation transformed the experience of suffering into a form of agency and galvanized the Church into collective action. I go on to explore how residents of the town of Nyankunde in northeastern Congo are constructing alternatives to the war economy and re-weaving ordinary life out of the ruins of their former lives. In showing how local narratives help us reframe the problem of war in Christian ethics, I argue that description is not a preliminary stage to moral judgment; description is moral judgment.</p> / Dissertation