...Running Head: MHE505 MODULE 1 – CASE ASSIGNMENT Question 1: Global definitions of terrorism are presented in the background reading. Provide a critique of these definitions. What would you propose as a global definition of terrorism? |To Define Terrorism | |Debate over what constitutes a terrorist or a terrorist assault occurs with each mass violent attack. In remarks to the Center for | |International Policy in Washington DC, on November 2001, former Ambassador Keeley (2002) discussed the necessity to define | |terrorism, and illustrated the challenge of constructing a definition that can be applied steadily. (Keeley, 2002) Thirteen years | |later six different U.S. government agencies have differing definition of Terrorism, and there is no consensus on a definition. | | | |Critique of Definitions of Terrorism | |Although the wording used in the within the definitions varies, there are key words each of the agencies emphasize. The U.S. Code | |Of Federal Regulation does not distinguish between a government and sub national group who uses terrorism as a method. United | |States Code Title...
Words: 1455 - Pages: 6
...War is a tricky subject, and in this case after the attacks from ISIS on our embassy’s, after the attacks on American civilians, we still cannot go to war according to Just War Theory and our moral values, as badly as the American people may want to go to war, we cannot and must not engage ISIS militarily with a full standing army, we have to punish them in other ways. Just War Theory is conducted in three parts, the initiation of war, known as jus ad bellum, the conducting of the war itself, jus in bello, and finally the aftermath of war, known as, jus post bellum (Moser and McDonald, 2016a). Jus ad bellum is the initiation of war and it states that war must have a just cause and that war must be taken by a legitimate authority, and in this situation, both of the characteristics mentioned previously are present. Yes, we have a just cause, and yes, the United States is a legitimate authority. However, we need to look at everything about jus ad bellum, “armed conflict is taken as a ‘“last resort’” and all other means have been exhausted.” Let us not forget that “a just war requires a “‘right intention”’ and to not be motivated by aggression” (Moser and McDonald, 2016a). In this situation, the American...
Words: 1040 - Pages: 5
...Concept of “Just War” BY: Ahmed Bayoumy Moter 201400746 Philosophy 101 Massacre at first glance is not an accepted act by humanitarian authorities. As Predominantly killing people cannot be considered a moral action if we defined the ethical acts according to the cultural relativism or even ethical subjectivism. Nonetheless, the concept of Just War (JW), developed from the time of St. Augustine, has another point of view regarding butchery. As it states that to start an ethically justifiable war it must be for a just cause, declared by a lawful authority, the last solution after trying all the possible ways of solving the problem, and have a high probability of success [1]. The theory of JW is divided into three main segments:...
Words: 1515 - Pages: 7
...| MUHAMMAD NAZRI BIN MOHMUD HUSSIN | 1031189 | 1 | | | | | Just War Theory: An Introduction. Just war theory is an interesting idea which constitutes both elements of ethics and politics to form a theory that describe the ethical and political relationship between states and sovereignty. Just War theory can be describes as an attempt to reconcile war with morality. Its main objective was to give justification for a state to launch an attack towards another state provided they have a valid reason to do so. From this we can come to define just war theory as a theory that specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought (BBC, 2014). Just War theory is often associated with Christianity as it was first developed through biblical teachings by Christian theologians, St Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Even though Just war theory started from biblical teaching it does not mean that Christianity endorses violence or war but instead the ultimate goal is peace. War can only serve as the last resort action to achieve peace. After Christianity become dominant in the Roman civilization, the demand for a theory to justify the act of war lead St. Augustine to propose the Just War theory that was driven from biblical teachings (Catholic Answer, n.d). This was later perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas to form the Just War Theory that we know today. In his...
Words: 2655 - Pages: 11
...Running header: Just War Theory The Just War Theory Regarding the War on Terrorism Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Abstract The modern interpretation of the Just War Theory list seven conditions which must met in order for a war to be considered “Just” (jus ad bellum). This paper demonstrates that, while it has been suggested that all wars, even the current war on terrorism, are unjust, the facts remain that any war that meets each of the seven criteria is a just war, regardless of opinion. Throughout the ages man has always looked to bring about the end of war, or when war has been waged to minimize the destruction caused when nations war. According to the text;”these rules were worked out in the late Middle Ages by the so-called Schoolmen or Scholars, building on the Roman law and early Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Ambrose. (The Moral of the Story, 2006) These rules were developed to first, deter wars, but when determined necessary, to limit the scope and suffering from the war. While not completely universal in scope, most advanced western societies have embraced the theory of just war as a bases for determining when, and if, a war is justified. As set forth by the Schoolmen, there are seven criteria that must be considered and met before nations can engage in war. They are; the Last Resort, a Just Cause, a Legitimate, Competent Authority, Comparative Justice, Right Intention, Probability of Success...
Words: 2037 - Pages: 9
...president of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, was a fervent revolutionary whose ultimate goal was independence for his country. [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/vietnam/vn04_01b.jpg] American officials were cognizant of the fact that only the complete decolonization of Indochina could establish a stable noncommunist force in the lands surrounding China. However, the American position to fulfill this objective was inadequate. The French were historically ill disposed to allowing Americans to meddle in their internal affairs. Furthermore, the French were paranoid that the United States had the intention to usurp their economic and political power in Indochina. Because of its apprehension about the Soviet danger to destitute post-World War II Western Europe, America was concerned with obtaining France’s support for the creation of a European Defense Community (EDC). Therefore, the European Defense Community was extremely important to the United States. Consequently, the U.S., out of fear of alienating France from its cause, had very little leverage in...
Words: 470 - Pages: 2
...With the discussion of unjust and just war has occurred in connection with whether terror-bombing is a just means to pursue a war, or the do it even mean to initiated one in accord with justice. Just war deontological theory is the relationship between duty and the morality rules of the military action, which will result in the good for the welfare of the people in the village that the war is taken place at. Failing to abide by the general rules that have been setup for the U.S. government will result in immorally behavior. When dealing with deontological, there is no room for subjective feelings, because it will leave room for question and it does not deal with ethics, but it does concentrate on prudence. Jus in Bello theory distinguishes how the military will are may treat the combatants and how we will treat noncombatants on the battlefield. The jus ad bellum doctrine is the standard war between the nation’s issues of what...
Words: 720 - Pages: 3
...The idea of war is abhorred by the overwhelming majority of people, so why is it still a part of reality today? Whether the reason is for economic or territorial gain, regime change, or religious influence, involved parties always attempt to rationalize the actions of war. How can war be justified if it results in the destruction of entire cities and the loss of innocent lives? The justification of war is one of the most provocative debates in the history of mankind. A theory that aims to clear up the circumstances where war is morally tolerated is the “Just War” theory. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the just war theory is: “The notion that the resort to armed force is justified under certain conditions; also, the notion that the...
Words: 1165 - Pages: 5
...shouldn't do more than air power. While troops are on the ground there is a greater chance that ISIS can get hold of more U.S. troops and kill them. There have been over 10,000 ISIS fighters killed, but still that has barely made a dent in the amount of fighters they have. It is too much of a risk to send U.S. troops on the ground, so that should be left as a last resort. The normative principle I am arguing is the just war theory. The idea that violence can be justified under certain criteria. The seven pieces of criteria are just cause, last resort, announcement of intention, reasonable hope of success, proportionality, right intention and just conduct. Each of these will be described in deeper meaning throughout this paper. Also in this paper, I will be explaining how the different criteria help in deciding what is considered just. The first criteria is the Just Cause, stating the war must be justified by the right reason. The right reason in this case being the defense of one’s self and others. The war against ISIS meets this criteria because ISIS...
Words: 1680 - Pages: 7
...Aquinas’s just war theory can be applied to modern armed conflicts today. Using the attack on Pearl Harbor as an example you can still apply these ancient ideas to provide a useful way to look at events. The just war theory states three rules for a just war. First, a proper authority must command the war. Those in authority are supposed to protect the people. It is lawful for them to use weapons or force to keep peace and order inside their city/country and to punish people who break the laws and do evil. In the same way, those in authority are responsible for defending the community against external enemies, and can therefore use force against enemies. Second, there must be a just cause for the war. “… Those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.” Third, those fighting must “have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.” The first rule is clearly the most important rule; it sets the tone for everything that follows. A state may launch a war only for the right reason. A just cause most frequently mentioned includes self-defense from external attack. Thus far, Pearl Harbor could be considered a just war because the United States declared a state of war with Japan after they were “suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” as stated by President Franklin Roosevelt in his “Day of Infamy Speech”. However, we must remember how morally complex...
Words: 794 - Pages: 4
...Just War theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: ‘the right to go to war’ and ‘right conduct in war’ . The first concerns the morality of going to war and the second with moral conduct within war. Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory - jus post bellum - dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. Just War theory postulates that war, while very terrible, is not always the worst option. There may be responsibilities so important, atrocities which can be prevented or outcomes so undesirable they justify war. Origins The Indian epic, the Mahabharata, offers one of the first written discussions of a 'just war'. In it, one of five ruling brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified, and then a long discussion ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality, just means, just cause, and fair treatment of captives and the wounded. The war in Mahabharata is preceded by context that develops the "just cause" for the war including last minute efforts to reconcile differences to avoid war. At the beginning of the war, there is the discussion of "just conduct" appropriate...
Words: 1514 - Pages: 7
...involvement in war on some occasions. The Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be theoretical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with justifying war ethically. The role of ethics is used to examine whether war is justified and if so can the aspects be changed. The just war tradition also considers the thoughts of various philosophers through the ages and examine their philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits and whether their thoughts have contributed to the justification of war. The just war theory was firstly developed by Saint Augustine of Hippo. Looking back at the Bible he realised that although older generations sided with the more peaceful aspects of the Bible (New Testament) the aspects which included violence (Old Testament) could not be ignored. In Mathew 5 it Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers” however he did not oppose those who crucified him. This links to how war can be justified because Jesus Gods only son did not punish those who purposely killed him without reason. So to punish those with to an extent have a valid reason could be seen as hypocritical. Augustine believed that justified wars were commanded by God in the bible and split his theory into two parts they are; jus ad bellum-just reasons for going to war, and jus in bello-just practice in war. This was then further developed by Aquinas. Jus ad bellum contains seven key points. If these points are met then war can be justified...
Words: 1501 - Pages: 7
...‘There are no just causes for war’ Many argue that there are just reasons for going to war however others state that there are no just reason at all, some reasons to go to war can be fighting for human rights or defending your religion however these can be overseen due to the amount of innocent people who die during war. A just reason for war may be to restore or protect human rights. Many people will claim or demand for better human rights and will want to oppose anyone who will go against them, this is a just reason for war as people are standing together and uniting as one to get what they want which is a better life. Augustine said that a just cause for going to war was ‘defending from attack’, if human rights were violated citizens may feel attacked and under threat therefore in order to restore peace they will have to go to war as they will see this as the only sensible response. The general rule is that only those people fighting you are legitimate targets of attack. Those who are not fighting should not be attacked as this would violate their human rights. Another just cause for going to war is self-defence; the clearest just cause is acting against an aggressor, for example in an invasion, many people are patriotic and would rather die instead of giving up their country to invaders therefore will start a war as a sense of self defence. Augustine said that a just cause for war was ‘recapturing things taken’; this view can be used here as invaders would be trying to...
Words: 648 - Pages: 3
...Amongst global issues there are so many widely debated concerns, and war being one of which is the most popular. The just war theory will forever be atop the list of global issues. The question of it being right or wrong depends on the person. Me being in the Airforce, I personally think it is needed. Dating back to the revolutionary war: war has helped us become the great nation that we are today. Although deemed tragic with lives being lost, the acceptance of war within certain moral and ethical boundaries, can be justified, has been necessary, and will continue to be so as long as humans are capable of a greater evil. If asked “what should I do?” I believe that as a nation we should all be able to live the life we want to live, as long as you’re a law abiding citizen. Being able to live out that fulfillment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is something we fight for every day. The just war theory was put in place by philosophers such as Plato but later on added to by people such as Christian monk, and Thomas Aquinas. The purpose of the theory is to provide a framework as to what is the right way to act in a potential conflict situation. For me Plato’s mind frame of thinking relates to different theories such as Contractarianism and Utilitarianism. Fighting against others foreign and domestic is an attest to strategies for attending to our liberty, which falls under Contractarianism. By doing so I think we are better off as a nation knowing that we will always...
Words: 856 - Pages: 4
...a concentration of fire at the enemy, Vietnam, 8 May 1968 Issue indivisibility occurs when the two parties cannot avoid war by bargaining because the thing over which they are fighting cannot be shared between them, only owned entirely by one side or the other. Religious issues, such as control over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, are more likely to be indivisible than economic issues. A bigger branch of the theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, is that both sides decide to go to war and one side may have miscalculated. Some go further and say that there is a problem of information asymmetry with incentives to misrepresent. The two countries may not agree on who would win a war between them, or whether victory would be overwhelming or merely eked out, because each side has military secrets about its own capabilities. They will not avoid the bargaining failure by sharing their secrets, since they cannot trust each other not to lie and exaggerate their strength to extract more concessions. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely, partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit. The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had...
Words: 1486 - Pages: 6
