Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 167-173). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Canterbury, 2008. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves [118]-146). Also available via the World Wide Web.

During World War II the British Royal Air Force undertook a campaign of area bombing of German cities, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. The debate over the ethics of this policy began at the time and has continued to the present. Area bombing clearly violated the traditional Just War norms of discrimination and noncombatant immunity. Apologists for the bombing have argued that such norms are no longer applicable in conditions of modern total war; critics of the bombing disagree. This dissertation defends the continuing relevance and applicability of these norms, and argues that area bombing constituted a violation of the moral laws governing the conduct of warfare. The dissertation also shows that the seeming intractability of the ethical debate on area bombing results from the participants' positions being informed by distinct and often incompatible ethical traditions. To understand and evaluate the different positions in the debate, it is necessary to engage critically with these underlying traditions. The dissertation shows how five ethical traditions touching on the norm of noncombatant immunity conditioned the positions taken by protagonists in the debate. The ethical traditions are Holy War / Crusade; Classical Realism; Christian Realism; Christian Just War / Jus in Bello; and Christian Pacifism. The first part of the dissertation explores the theoretical background and historical development of each of these traditions. The second part examines five protagonists in the British debate during World War II and analyzes how their positions were informed by the ethical traditions considered in the first part. The participants examined are Lord Vansittart (Holy War / Crusade), Captain Basil Liddell Hart (Classical Realism), Archbishop William Temple (Christian Realism), Bishop George Bell (Just War / Jus in Bello), and Vera Brittain (Christian Pacifism). The dissertation evaluates the strengths, weaknesses, and contributions of each of these traditions. By considering the voices raised against the area bombing at the time - especially those of Bishop Bell and Vera Brittain - the dissertation seeks to encourage theologically and ethically informed opposition to potential violations of the jus in bello norms in present and future conflicts.

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.

Since the end of the Cold War, traditional justifications for war have diminished in relevance and importance, while the use of Humanitarian Military Interventions (HMI) has proliferated, to the point that formerly traditional wars – e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq invasions – have become retroactively redefined as HMIs. While HMI suffers from a number of problems, from international law to historical track record, its proponents have managed to turn aside all arguments by claiming they represent either statistical outliers, improper implementation, or at best indicate a need for a certain degree of fine-tuning. Crucially, the validity of the HMI practice is never brought into question. In order to attempt to break this dialectic stalemate, this dissertation recasts HMI as a Kuhnian paradigm. Doing so provides for a better understanding of HMI as a holistic Weltanschauung, and allows the problems of HMI to be understood as anomalies. Unlike arguments, anomalies need not engage with every discrete position held by the paradigm. Instead, they serve as a direct demonstration of the untenability of a position, as evidenced by systemic failure to produce the desired results. Consequently, the paradigm approach allows for a binary resolution to the problems of HMI: either the anomalies can be explained by the paradigm, or the paradigm has failed. The present analysis begins with an examination of paradigms and their structures, and then follows the history and context of HMI is considered from a philosophical and historical perspectives. Then, the structure of HMI as a paradigm is unpacked, with the attendant ends, means, justifications, and implications. Finally, four categories of HMI anomalies are presented, leading to the conclusion that the HMI paradigm is a failed one.

The purpose of the research is to study the relationship between international drug interdiction policies and domestic politics in fragile democracies, and to demonstrate how international drug control policies and the use of force fit the rhetoric of war, are legitimized by the principles of a just war, but may also cause collateral damage and negative unintended consequences. The method used is a case study of the Dominican Republic. The research has found that international drug control regimes, primarily led by the U.S. and narrowly focused on interdiction, have influenced an increasingly militarized approach to domestic law enforcement in the Dominican Republic. The collateral damage caused by militarized enforcement comes in the form of negative perceptions of citizen security, loss of respect for the rule of law and due process, and low levels of civil society development. The drug war has exposed the need for significant reform of the institutions charged with carrying out enforcement, the police force and the judicial system in particular. The dissertation concludes that the extent of drug trafficking in the Dominican Republic is beyond the scope of domestic reform efforts alone, but that the programs implemented do show some potential for future success. The dissertation also concludes that the framework of warfare is not the most appropriate for the international problems of drug traffic and abuse. A broader, multipronged approach should be considered by world policy makers in order to address all conditions that allow drugs to flourish without infringing upon democratic and civil rights in the process.

The thesis critically assesses the decision-making process leading up to the acceptance of bill B 118 which approved Danish military action in the American-led multilateral coalition ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. The analysis will use coding through a qualitative content analysis to investigate the potential use and abuse of human rights framework by decision-makers, during this process. Theories of just war, activist military politics and the decision-making theory of perception and misperception are used to provide the foundation for the content analysis, as well as positioning the results in the context of the wider political sphere. Though the nature of the investigation does not allow for absolute conclusions, the findings demonstrated how human rights were indeed used as a tool of both persuasion in the hunt for support and as a means to legitimise actions.

No description available.

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.