The just-war theory as described in Walzer is not a checklist of items that, when completed, gives the authorization for war. Morality for waging war is on a sliding scale rather that a definite point of decision. Because of the ambiguity of when a war is just depends on who is making that decision, just-war theory tries to qualify the situation using the circumstances leading up to armed conflict. During the Gulf War, the coalition fulfilled many of the just-war qualifiers which slid the scale in favor of a just war. Aggression, last resort, competent authority, and humanitarian intervention were among the justification factors used by the coalition.
If one rejects this legitimacy, one must object to all killing in war, targeted and non-targeted alike, and thus not support the view, which is criticized here, that targeted killings are particularly disturbing from a moral point of view." (Posted 2/15/09) In "Can Terrorism Be Justified?" Ethics in International Affairs, Rowman and Littlefield, 2001, Andrew Valls argues that "terrorism, understood as political violence committed by nonstate actors, can be assessed from the point of view of just war theory and that terrorist acts can indeed satisfy the theory's criteria." Although I have argued in "The Senses of Terrorism" that Valls' semantic methodology is fundamentally flawed, I nevertheless recommend the article.
Justifiable War | A Collection of Essays
So, in order to understand the difficulty of conceiving of any ethically justifiable wars, it's a good idea to start by thinking long and hard about what's wrong with killing if and when it is wrong.
The Trump-NFL Controversy: Some (Conservative) …
Fourth Amendment context offer a logical starting point for providing a similar touchstone for assessing the reasonableness of targeting decisions in armed conflict." In "'Efficiency' Jus in Bello and 'Efficiency' Jus Ad Bellum in the Practice of Targeted Killing Through Drone Warfare?," Kenneth Anderson examines the tension that drone warfare creates between jus in bello and jus ad bellumconsiderations: "The more targeted killing technologies allow more precise targeting and reducing collateral casualties and harm (jus in bello), and that moreover at less personal risk to the drone users forces, perhaps the less inhibition that party has in resorting to force (jus ad bellum)." In "Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan," Mary Ellen O'Connell questions the governments authorization of increased drone attacks and argues these types of attacks "cannot be justified under international law for a number of reasons." One chief reason, O'Connell argues, is that "international law does not recognize the right to kill with battlefield weapons outside an actual armed conflict." (Posted 8/17/11)In "Drone Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict," Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Volume 39, No.
Sitagu Sayadaw and justifiable evils in Buddhism - New …
citizens engaged in acts of terrorism abroad, but the sensitive nature of national security and military concerns and prudential requirements will ultimately keep full adjudication of these issues awaiting their day in court." (Posted 7/8/11)In "From Killer Machines and Swarms, or Why Ethics of Military Robotics is not (necessarily) About Robotics,"SpringerLInk, March, 2001, Mark Coeckelbergh wants to challenge "the prevalent assumptions that military robotics is about military technology as a mere means to an end, about single killer machines, and about military developments." (Posted 7/8/11)In "Suicide Terrorism Opportunistic Tactic or Strategic Campaign?,"Western Political Science Association, 2011 Annual Meeting, authors Sarat Krishnan, Ami Pedahzur, and Bobby Jenkins examine cases of suicide attacks in Iraq and Pakistan suggesting that these types of attacks "are a set of opportunistic tactics used in conjunction with other conventional tactics in pursuit of a diverse set of goals." (Posted 7/8/11)Here is Obamas National Strategy for Counterterrorism.
War, The Philosophy of | Internet Encyclopedia of …
David argues that although targeted killings have "not appreciably diminished the costs of terrorist attacks and may have even increased them," nevertheless the practice is justifiable as a means of "providing retribution and revenge for a population under siege," and because it "may, over the long term, help create conditions for a more secure Israel." (Posted 11/25/08) In this online draft of "The Legality of Targeted Killing as an Instrument of War: The Case of Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi," prepared for the 5th Global Conference on War, Virtual War and Human Security, Budapest 2008, Avery Plaw argues that "while there is a strong case for the legality of the al-Harethi operation, this case relies on elements that may not apply to many other cases.