This study is a transdisciplinary inquiry into the reasons for waging war, for fighting, and for repudiating war as an instrument of foreign policy. In Part I, its essential premise is that there are many ways for analysing the ethics and morality of war, and that to develop a comprehensive understanding of this subject one must be willing to engage with a broad range of alternate views. Though moralists usually argue about the rights and wrongs of conduct from within a given set of ethical ideas, the author's aim has been to move beyond the accepted boundaries of current philosophical argument.Questions raised include: To what extent is it morally right to adopt non-violent, pacifist or abolitionist attitudes?; How should the morality of domestic and ethnic wars be considered?; What are the human costs of war? Case studies such as the Vietnam War, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, Bosnia and Rwanda are used. In Part II, three inescapable observations add to the foundation of the thesis.First, war is not inevitable. Second, the need to prevent war is increasingly urgent.Third, preventing war is possible.Examples from 'hot' spots around the world illustrate that the potential for domestic war can be diffused through the early, skillful and integrated application of political, diplomatic, economic and military measures / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) (Social Ecology)

The understanding of terrorism has thus far been determined not by some independent line of inquiry but instead by a strong interplay between conflicting moral positions. Treated sometimes as a method or tactic and at other times as a distinct form of violence, the true nature of terrorism remains elusive, while a failure to understand it has squarely been blamed on the moral problem. The conceptual and theoretical debate in the field of terrorism studies as a result has not progressed in any meaningful way. Issues that were associated with terrorism when a formal inquiry into the problem was first launched still remain unresolved. Basic questions as to whether terrorism generates fear and if it is possible to identify its victim or perpetrator continue to plague the terrorism discourse. Meanwhile matters that are crucial, such as the widespread tendency to treat terrorism as a tactic, strategy or ideology and the essentially contested character of terrorism scholarship are either ignored or erroneously taken for granted. This thesis will show that our inability to define terrorism is not due to the moral problem as it is made out to be but because of our failure to understand the true nature of terrorism. To accomplish this task, it not only analyzes issues that are regularly contested but also discusses in detail the ones that are trivialized and overlooked. It ultimately concludes that terrorism primarily plays only an auxiliary or a facilitatory role and therefore the key to defining it and understanding its true nature lies in its utility and function.

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.

<p>The thesis argues that, as a tradition, the concept of just war is socially and contextually sensitive and revisable. It explores the relevance of theory according to the dynamic changes in the nature of threats in the international arena and concludes that the just war tradition is still relevant to the contemporary modern threats that require an act of pre-emptive warfare. However, it needs some revision to be comprehensively applicable to the dynamic of modern threats and the nature of pre-emptive war. Due to the nature of pre-emptive war a nation launches the attack before the aggression from the other nation-in-conflict erupts. The author, therefore, proposed several theoretical and procedural revisions in both the principle of “Jus Ad Bellum” and “Jus In Bello” using the method of reflective equilibrium to create a comprehensive “just” pre-emptive war doctrine as part of the development and dynamic in just war tradition.</p>

The thesis argues that, as a tradition, the concept of just war is socially and contextually sensitive and revisable. It explores the relevance of theory according to the dynamic changes in the nature of threats in the international arena and concludes that the just war tradition is still relevant to the contemporary modern threats that require an act of pre-emptive warfare. However, it needs some revision to be comprehensively applicable to the dynamic of modern threats and the nature of pre-emptive war. Due to the nature of pre-emptive war a nation launches the attack before the aggression from the other nation-in-conflict erupts. The author, therefore, proposed several theoretical and procedural revisions in both the principle of “Jus Ad Bellum” and “Jus In Bello” using the method of reflective equilibrium to create a comprehensive “just” pre-emptive war doctrine as part of the development and dynamic in just war tradition.