Dit document bevat vragen over het boek Moral Constraints on War: Principles and Cases. Als u het boek leest kan u deze vragen perfect er naast leggen tijdens het studeren.
This document contains questions about the book Moral Constraints on War: Principles and Cases. If you put the questions n...
Preface & introduction
I. Preface
1. There is a contradiction between the compartmentalisation of the ethical discussions on the
legitimacy of war and the moral approach of Just War Theory. Please explain.
II. Introduction
1. Some realists state that taking care of the interests of the own nation should be considered as a
moral position. What do they mean with this? What would be the alternative view defended
by Just War Theory? And what would then be the difference between a moral and a
normative framework in making choices regarding the use of force?
2. We may distinguish the question of starting a war from the question how to wage a war. Is it
possible to be a realist in answering one of these two questions and not in relationship to the
other? Give an example of a position that gives a moral answer to the first but not to the
second question and an example of a position that gives a realist answer to the first but a
moral one to the second question.
3. Militarists state that the horrors of war are compensated by its benefits. Please explain and
give two examples of such militarist claims.
4. Can ISIS be considered militarist? Why?
5. Did Tolstoy appeal to a passive submission to evil? What were his views on the role of
governments in creating wars? Which impact did he have on pacifism?
6. A sharp distinction was made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries between war and
peace. Is it possible to make such a sharp distinction when looking at present day conflicts?
7. Why is it problematic for governments to use the concept of war for intrastate armed
conflicts they are involved in and even regarding armed conflicts against other states? But why
is then used by the US and other states in relation to terrorism? And why is the formulation of
“war on terror” problematic according to Gilles Andréani?
8. Explain the concepts of “hybrid threats” and “hybrid warfare”. Why should one be careful to
use the term hybrid warfare?
9. The present book is using the term of a Just War theory. Why do some authors speak about a
Just War theory and others about a just war tradition? What does the concept of a ‘theory’
mean in this context?
10. What are the positions of the US and Iran? Which measures did Iran take in response to the
withdrawal of the US from the 2015 agreement and the Trump campaign against Iran? What
did the Iranian parliament decide?
1
, | Summary of ethics in international relations |
Questions Part I: Jus ad Bellum
I. Chapter 1: Just Cause
1. When is a war against another country justified according to Mencius? Please explain his
position in full.
2. How is the Principle of Just Cause understood in Islam? Explain the difference between the
two traditional historical positions in Islam regarding the permissibility of offensive war for
religious purposes? And what is the specific Shiite position regarding this issue?
3. What are the arguments of Grotius regarding the use of military force against powers that are
increasing their military capabilities? Can such a use be considered expedient? Does he find it just?
4. Is the Just Cause Principle present in Chapter VII of the UN Charter and Article 5 of the
Washington Treaty? Explain this in full.
5. Is it justified to start a war to recover territory that has wrongfully been taken a long time ago?
Was it justified for Iraq to annex Kuwait in 1990 according to Saddam Hussein and according
the international community? Why?
6. What is meant with the Caroline incident and what is its significance for international law?
7. Under which conditions can a pre-emptive military attack be justified according to Walzer?
Apply these conditions to the 1967 Six Day War.
8. Apply the three principles of Walzer regarding the justification of a pre-emptive military
attack to states that are considered to be “rogue states”. Are the three necessary conditions
defined by Walzer always present here?
9. Should the doctrine of a ‘responsibility to protect’ be seen as a challenge to the principle of
sovereignty? Explain the attitude to sovereignty expressed by this doctrine as compared to
older views on sovereignty. When can coercive measures such as the use of military force be
envisaged according to the R2P doctrine?
II. Chapter 2: Legitimate Authority
1. Why is it so important to make a distinction between private and public warfare?
2. How does Confucianism apply the Principle of Legitimate Authority in a situation where an
unjust ruler has to be deposed?
3. How is the Principle of Legitimate Authority understood in Sunni and Shi’a Islam? How does al-Qaeda
and like-minded groups understand the Principle of Legitimate Authority regarding military jihad?
4. Describe the various positions in the academic debate about the qualification of the UN SC
to act as a legitimate authority concerning the use of force in respect to humanitarian
interventions.
5. Did the US and the UK respect the Principle of Legitimate Authority in their attack on Iraq in
2003? Describe the problems the UNSC was confronting and the discussions at the time
regarding the application of the Principle of Legitimate Authority.
6. Could de Gaulle’s appeal to the French to resist count on large domestic support? How did de
Gaulle increase his legitimacy nationally and internationally?
7. Describe the French strategy against the Algerian liberation movement before de Gaulle returned to power.
To which extent was it effective? Why did the government of de Gaulle change the French strategy?
8. What are the motives of President Macron in reopening the debate on the Algerian War, but
also in keeping this debate within strict limits?
9. How does Hezbollah understand the Principle of Legitimate Authority? Explain this position
in sufficient detail. How did it apply this principle in its refusal to have its troops being put
under the control and authority of the Lebanese state?
1
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur samenvatter3. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €4,49. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
