Military ethics serve as a normative code of behaviour for the armed forces of a state, acting as a mechanism of definition and control within the force, between the force and its client, and between the force, its adversaries and the wider public. They have two, intrinsically linked, functions: a preventative function, which defines the moral and legal parameters of conduct, and a constructive function, which creates and maintains an effective and controllable force. Preceded by the code of chivalry, they were largely a creation of the era of conventional interstate warfare that was waged across the European continent from the Treaty of Westphalia through to the desolate end of the Second World War; yet, the operations upon which armed forces, and in particular, the New Zealand Army are deployed have changed, dramatically. Wars no longer, current operations are generally justified on moral principles and involve a multinational, joint and interagency deployment sent to intervene in an irregular, intrastate conflict occurring in an underdeveloped region and conducted under the intense glare of the media. This disjuncture between the changing nature of operations and the context in which military ethics were formulated provides the fundamental question for the thesis: if the milieu in which military ethics developed has changed significantly, what is their current utility? Using the New Zealand Army as the frame of reference, first the contemporary operational environment and then the specific operational environment in Timor-Leste were examined to assess the current utility of military ethics. It was found that the preventative function has an increasing utility because it ensures conduct is within expected norms in an era where the perception of the adversary, the local populace and the domestic and international audience is key to operational success. Despite the reduction in conflict intensity, the constructive function has a remaining utility through its mediation and amelioration of the stressors engendered by the growing complexity of the operational environment. The retention of utility for the constructive function appears to have been facilitated by an adaptation of the warrior ethos, from a narrow traditional outlook to a broad and comprehensive modern interpretation.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 2007. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 250-259).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 2007. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 250-259).

Thesis (M.S. in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy)--Joint Forces Staff College, Joint Advanced Warfighting School, 2008. / Title from PDF title page; viewed on Dec. 12, 2008. "20 May 2008." Electronic version of original print document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 74-76).

Throughout the last decade wars have created a certain interest in reflection upon rights, justice and the causes for which people may or may not be killed. Soldiers are expected to make decisions about life and death in extremely difficult circumstances and complex situations during war. With conflicting obligations, they are forced to choose between orders, duty and ethical values in situations where not all can be met at the same time. Scholars in military ethics argues that ethical challenges and dilemmas can be overcome by using ethical reasoning processes such as moral judgement, moral competence and through different moral principles in the conduct of war. This study investigates how Swedish soldiers reason between moral dilemmas they might encounter in their professional practice and aims to explore if there is a conflict between their moral obligations and duty. It aims to improve the understanding of how Swedish soldiers justify the use of lethal force and obeying orders, and what underlying ethical and moral factors that affect their judgements and justifications. Qualitative scenario-based results show that their moral judgements are based foremost on consequentialist grounds, with good moral competence to adapt their judgements when faced with moral dilemmas. Subconsciously they follow the rules and moral principles of war, putting great emphasis on their trust and dependence on fellow soldiers as well as higher military bodies, although they are likely to disobey orders when it doesn’t seem morally justified.

Thesis (Master of Military Studies)-Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 2008. / Title from title page of PDF document (viewed on: Feb 2, 2010). Includes bibliographical references.

The trend towards the automation and robotization of warfare, enabling the exercise of violence from a distance, has been long-present, dating back to such inventions as the bow and arrow that allowed an archer to kill from afar. Today’s military drones now permit an extreme separation between rivals. James Der Derian’s concept of virtuous war encapsulates a certain normative view of current and future wars. A rationale of the actors waging virtuous war is that violence is used in a cleaner way, resulting in ever fewer battle deaths. In this thesis, I argue that the next step in the progression of military weaponry is the inclusion of artificial superintelligence (hereinafter ASI) in the American drone and counterterrorism program. While including this technology into the American war machine may represent a moral objective, I conclude that the use of ASI for military purposes is immoral because accountability becomes indeterminable.

Introduction: Licensed medical personnel (henceforth LMP) experience ethical problems related to undertaking care duties in combat zones. When employed in the Armed Forces they are always under the command of tactical officers (henceforth TOs). Aim: The overall aim was to explore everyday ethical problems experienced by military medical personnel, focusing on licensed medical personnel in combat zones from a descriptive and normative perspective. A further aim was to explore leadership challenges in leading licensed medical personnel. Methods: For the research descriptive, explorative (inductive and abductive) and normative designs were used. Data collection was undertaken by using different methods. Altogether 12 physicians, 15 registered nurses, seven combat lifesavers and 15 tactical officers were individually interviewed. The participants were selected by strategic (I), purposive (II) and theoretical sampling (III). The interviews were analyzed by using qualitative content analysis. Study III used classic grounded theory and study IV was a normative analysis of an ethical problem based on the idea of a wide reflective equilibrium. Results: We found that LMP experience ethical problems related to dual loyalty when serving in combat zones. They give reasons for undertaking, or not, military duties that can be seen as combat duties. Sometimes they have restricted reasons for undertaking these military duties. Furthermore, LMP are under the command of TOs who found it challenging when leading LMP, since TOs have to unify LMP in the unit. The unifying makes it difficult since LMP experience dual loyalty. Conclusions: LMP experience dual loyalty in combat zones. The reason maybe that humanitarian law and the medical ethical codes are not clear-cut or explicit about how to be interpreted around these everyday ethical problems in internal military operations. In order to fit in todays context humanitarian law needs to be revised. Furthermore, LMP need further training in parallel with reflections on ethical problems in order to adapt to the combat zones of today.

No description available.

Why has international society been unable to develop political and judicial collective-security arrangements to limit external aggression? The thesis argues that efforts to limit aggression in moral and legal theory have created an unjust order in which great powers have used these theoretical traditions to reinforce their power in the global order. The thesis argues that is not a new development but can be found in one of the oldest traditions of moral reflection on war, the just war tradition. To substantiate this point, the thesis critically surveys the philosophers of the ancient Greek, Roman, Medieval Christian Renaissance, and early modern theorists of just war and demonstrates that their just war ideas contain assumptions about exclusion, identity and power reflecting their cultural superiority which underlie the practices and theories of the leading states and justifications of their aggressive wars. The thesis connects these moral reflections to the emergence of modern international law and the European pluralist international society of states based on mutual respect for sovereignty and the norm of non-intervention, highlighting how justifications of its colonial aggression against non-Europeans established an unjust solidarist order against them which persists in the post-Cold War era. To conclude it presents suggestions for improvement in the current pluralist international arrangements to address the issue of aggression.