0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
117 Ansichten1 Seite
This document outlines the principles of just war theory, including jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum comprises six principles related to just causes for war, legitimate authority, right intention, reasonable prospects of success, proportionality, and last resort. Jus in bello comprises three principles of discrimination between military and civilian targets, proportionality of unintended harms, and necessity of using the least harmful means. The document also briefly discusses debates around just war theory in modern contexts.
This document outlines the principles of just war theory, including jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum comprises six principles related to just causes for war, legitimate authority, right intention, reasonable prospects of success, proportionality, and last resort. Jus in bello comprises three principles of discrimination between military and civilian targets, proportionality of unintended harms, and necessity of using the least harmful means. The document also briefly discusses debates around just war theory in modern contexts.
This document outlines the principles of just war theory, including jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum comprises six principles related to just causes for war, legitimate authority, right intention, reasonable prospects of success, proportionality, and last resort. Jus in bello comprises three principles of discrimination between military and civilian targets, proportionality of unintended harms, and necessity of using the least harmful means. The document also briefly discusses debates around just war theory in modern contexts.
Jus ad bellum typically comprises the following six principles:
1. Just Cause: the war is an attempt to avert the right kind of injury. 2. Legitimate Authority: the war is fought by an entity that has the authority to fight such wars. 3. Right Intention: that entity intends to achieve the just cause, rather than using it as an excuse to achieve some wrongful end. 4. Reasonable Prospects of Success: the war is sufficiently likely to achieve its aims. 5. Proportionality: the morally weighted goods achieved by the war outweigh the morally weighted bads that it will cause. 6. Last Resort (Necessity): there is no other less harmful way to achieve the just cause. Typically the jus in bello list comprises: 1. Discrimination: belligerents must always distinguish between military objectives and civilians, and intentionally attack only military objectives. 2. Proportionality: foreseen but unintended harms must be proportionate to the military advantage achieved. 3. Necessity: the least harmful means feasible must be used.
This middle ground between pacifism and political realism is dominated by
a tradition of thought known as the theory of the just war Taking in refugees, modern day approach, aid- Intention vs. consequence. Discrimination in the drone sense is fine in intention. Carpet bombing no. Is nation state applicable in contemporary wars? Guidelines and rough distinctions? Or should they be able to adhere the whole time. We cant completely remove civilians from the concept. Its about finding the correct balance Bombing civilians working in industry (Dresden example) > if they are complicit and supporting the actions of their government then perhaps they can be included as part of the war effort.
If He (The Enemy) Is Superior in Strength, Evade Him. If His Forces Are United, Separate Them. Attack Him Where He Is Unprepared Appear Where You Are Not Expected.'