In its investigation of social and political violence during the Irish Civil War, this thesis tackles the diverse range of deliberate, frightening and harmful actions—largely neglected by military and political histories of the conflict—that surfaced in local communities in Ireland during 1922–23. Through a three-county study of Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford, in the province of Munster, this thesis examines and explains violence perpetrated alongside and away from armed encounters between the anti-Treaty republican army and Free State forces. It identifies three main categories of violence: arson (the burning of houses, crops and infrastructure), intimidation (including boycott, damage to property, verbal and written threats, animal maiming, cattle driving and land seizure) and violence against the person (bodily damage or death through physical contact or the use of weapons). The thesis charts, where possible, the frequency of the violent act and, in exploring the symbolism and strategies involved in arson, intimidation and violence against the person, identifies two key functions of social and political violence. For one, targeted violence was used, during the Irish Civil War, to regulate community relations: state-sanctioned ethnic cleansing did not take place, but the religious and political minority (Protestants, ex-Servicemen and other British Loyalists) were deliberately persecuted, resulting in their flight from Munster. Land is another powerful motif in the thesis; the second key function of violence was to challenge attitudes towards rural issues and force redistribution outside the official channels. The thesis also places the Irish Civil War in perspective: the prolific bloodshed, sexual violence and gruesome torture witnessed in Central Europe, after World War I, did not become the norm in Ireland. Animals and private property bore the brunt of the severest actions in the three Munster counties. By bringing to light victims’ experiences of violence recorded in largely unexplored compensation claims, this thesis captures the complex questions of loyalty and identity—facing armed actors and officials, as well as civilians—that beset the violent and chaotic establishment of independent Ireland.

<p>Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka de normativa utrymmen som det finns i dagens internationella samhälle för förebyggande interventioner. Interventioner definieras som ett medel i en större politisk strategi som sker inom en suverän stats gränser mot dess officiella vilja. Vidare skiljer sig förebyggande interventioner från icke-förebyggande genom dess preventiva karaktär. Utifrån en begreppsanalys studeras olika interventionsformer och argument för interventionspolitikens legitimerande. I den följande normativa analysen diskuteras och ställs olika argument om interventioners legitimerande emot varandra, och det normativa utrymmet för interventioner undersöks. Interventioner, förebyggande interventioner och legitimerandet av desamma är kopplat till begrepp som suveränitet och auktoritet men också till internationella lagar och universella normer samt motiven bakom interventionerna.</p><p>Ett av de stora dilemman som uppstår kring förebyggande interventioner är valet mellan att bryta mot de internationella politiska normerna och skadan av ett passivt förhållningssätt mot mänskligt lidande. I dagens internationella samhälle skulle det kunna finnas ett normativt utrymme för förebyggande interventioner under förutsättning att motiven bakom interventionen värderas högre än argumenten mot den förebyggande interventionen. Avsaknaden av en tydlig suverän auktoritet, allmänt giltiga och accepterade motiv och ett legalt utrymme gör att det är svårt att finna en normativ yta för förebyggande interventioner i det internationella samhället. Trots en ökad positiv retorik från FN rörande förebyggande interventioner, samt att interventioner blivit alltmer accepterade, vilket inte var fallet bara femtio år tillbaka, saknar förebyggande interventioner fortfarande en allmängiltig legitimitet och acceptans.</p> / <p>The objective of this thesis is to study the normative space and scope for pre-emptive interventions in the international society of today. Interventions are defined as part of a broader political strategy aimed at changing the actual course of actions within a specific sovereign country against that country’s official will. Further, are pre-emptive interventions distinguished from non-pre-emptive interventions by the latter’s reactive character. Through a concept analysis are different types of intervention and the arguments for the legitimacy of different intervention policies studied. In the following normative analysis different arguments for the legitimacy of interventions are positioned against each other, and thereby the space and scope for pre-emptive interventions is examined. Interventions, pre-emptive interventions and the legitimacy thereof, are connected to concepts of sovereignty and authority, as well as international law, universal norms and the motives behind the interventions.</p><p>One of the main dilemmas considering pre-emptive interventions is the choice between breaking international political norms, and the damage of doing nothing and passively watching ongoing human suffering. Today’s international society would have a space and scope for pre-emptive interventions provided that the motives behind the intervention are considered more valid than the arguments against the same policy. The lack of an obvious international authority, general valid and acceptable motives, and a legal space for pre-emptive interventions, make it difficult to find legitimate grounds and a normative space and scope for them. In spite of an increasingly positive rhetoric by the UN on pre-emptive interventions, among other examples, pre-emptive interventions remain a general notion of legitimacy and acceptance.</p>

The diploma thesis deals with the terrorism and war, their meaning in the globalised world and with the possibility of ethical justification of violence. Theoretical part delineates terrorism, its terminology and political and social environment. It describes kinds and methods of terrorism, its history and some of the terrorist organizations with their goals. The thesis also compares terrorism and war in the parts where they intersect. In the next chapters it presents original ethical theories which would be supported by the moral assessment of violent enforcing of interests. There is explained the term of just war, its basic principles and obligatory attributes. Practical part characterize three chosen actual conflicts: the Al- Qaeda attacks on the United States from 11th September, 2001, Chechnya war for its autonomy and current factual occupation of Iraq by allied forces. Legitimate setting in the sense of ius ad bellum, the right to defend by the use of violence, was not mostly deconstructed. In the area of ius in bello, the right in the war, the hypothesis was not verified and the particular violent action did not fulfill some of the basic principles of just war.

Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka de normativa utrymmen som det finns i dagens internationella samhälle för förebyggande interventioner. Interventioner definieras som ett medel i en större politisk strategi som sker inom en suverän stats gränser mot dess officiella vilja. Vidare skiljer sig förebyggande interventioner från icke-förebyggande genom dess preventiva karaktär. Utifrån en begreppsanalys studeras olika interventionsformer och argument för interventionspolitikens legitimerande. I den följande normativa analysen diskuteras och ställs olika argument om interventioners legitimerande emot varandra, och det normativa utrymmet för interventioner undersöks. Interventioner, förebyggande interventioner och legitimerandet av desamma är kopplat till begrepp som suveränitet och auktoritet men också till internationella lagar och universella normer samt motiven bakom interventionerna. Ett av de stora dilemman som uppstår kring förebyggande interventioner är valet mellan att bryta mot de internationella politiska normerna och skadan av ett passivt förhållningssätt mot mänskligt lidande. I dagens internationella samhälle skulle det kunna finnas ett normativt utrymme för förebyggande interventioner under förutsättning att motiven bakom interventionen värderas högre än argumenten mot den förebyggande interventionen. Avsaknaden av en tydlig suverän auktoritet, allmänt giltiga och accepterade motiv och ett legalt utrymme gör att det är svårt att finna en normativ yta för förebyggande interventioner i det internationella samhället. Trots en ökad positiv retorik från FN rörande förebyggande interventioner, samt att interventioner blivit alltmer accepterade, vilket inte var fallet bara femtio år tillbaka, saknar förebyggande interventioner fortfarande en allmängiltig legitimitet och acceptans. / The objective of this thesis is to study the normative space and scope for pre-emptive interventions in the international society of today. Interventions are defined as part of a broader political strategy aimed at changing the actual course of actions within a specific sovereign country against that country’s official will. Further, are pre-emptive interventions distinguished from non-pre-emptive interventions by the latter’s reactive character. Through a concept analysis are different types of intervention and the arguments for the legitimacy of different intervention policies studied. In the following normative analysis different arguments for the legitimacy of interventions are positioned against each other, and thereby the space and scope for pre-emptive interventions is examined. Interventions, pre-emptive interventions and the legitimacy thereof, are connected to concepts of sovereignty and authority, as well as international law, universal norms and the motives behind the interventions. One of the main dilemmas considering pre-emptive interventions is the choice between breaking international political norms, and the damage of doing nothing and passively watching ongoing human suffering. Today’s international society would have a space and scope for pre-emptive interventions provided that the motives behind the intervention are considered more valid than the arguments against the same policy. The lack of an obvious international authority, general valid and acceptable motives, and a legal space for pre-emptive interventions, make it difficult to find legitimate grounds and a normative space and scope for them. In spite of an increasingly positive rhetoric by the UN on pre-emptive interventions, among other examples, pre-emptive interventions remain a general notion of legitimacy and acceptance.