The origins of human aggression and Just War Theory
$5.95
humanities/philosophy
presentation
published 10/10/2008
review : Completed
level : Advanced
requested 2 times
Just war theory may not be able to prevent war directly, but it does make political leaders more accountable for their actions. Knowing that critics will determine whether or not a war is just based on just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, proportionality, and other key factors and that the conduct throughout the war will also fall under scrutiny, is strong incentive for politicians to think carefully before going to war. In this essay, I will be focusing on jus ad bellum (justice for going to war), though just war theory encompasses both jus ad bellum and jus in bello (justice in war). I will apply the principles of jus ad bellum to the Vietnam War and the current war on terrorism in Iraq in order to explain just war theory and how it works through practical application; in addition, I will draw parallels between the two wars and ultimately illustrate, through just war theory, that both wars are emphatically unjust.
Table of Contents
- Introduction.
- Critics of just war theory.
- Just war theory and the accountability of political leaders for their actions.
- The first mandate of jus ad bellum (Latin for Justice to war).
- The Vietnam War and the 'Domino Theory'.
- The current war on Iraq.
- The second aspect of jus ad bellum - Intended goal of war should be peace.
- The US's failure to uphold the Geneva Agreements.
- The third aspect of jus ad bellum - legitimate authority.
- War declared by those 'responsible for the public order?.
- Iraq War and global legitimate authority.
- The Fourth aspect of jus ad bellum - war must be an absolute last resort.
- The failure of the Vietnam War and the Iraq War to fulfill this principle.
- Proportionality in jus ad bellum.
- Relative justice - crucial to jus ad bellum.
- Cold War propaganda depicting Reds as demonized nonhumans in Vietnam.
- Having a reasonable hope of success.
- Conclusion.
