Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have risen in both prevalence and apparent power. The presence of non-state entities has caused significant ethical and political problems with Western ideology. Coker discusses issues concerning non-state actors in “Ethics and War in the 21st Century” with special attention given to the conflicting cultural ideas regarding warfare concerning the USA. The ability to label a target as not only an enemy combatant, but a fundamentally opposed force that is willing to ignore common practices and ethics is one that Coker denounces and attempts to explain. The disparity of established ethics between the two groups is only complicated with emerging weapon technologies, most importantly non-lethal weapon systems. In recent decades, the concept of a diffused enemy has proven to be ethically more problematic regarding identification and actions against a combative force with considerations for emerging technologies. For most of the world’s conflicts until the presence of violent non-state actors, clashes have occurred between large state entities. The wars and skirmishes consisted between the two states with a separate armed forces contingency battling each other on a set stage with defined ethical and political motives. This black and white model of violent conflict resolution became the standard for a long stretch of time and was agreed upon by all state actors. One of the reasons that Coker discusses for the advantageous nature of the set battlefield and soldiers includes the preservation of humanity for the civilian population and the soldiers. The mutual agreement of ethical boundaries even in war protect those not taking up arms and helps to maintain decency when regarding prisoners of... ... middle of paper ... ...ker further explores the impact of the lack of these promises through discussion of how a faction should approach wining a war. He proposes that the winning side should use only the minimum force needed to win and do so with a cordial and respectful manner so to not incite further revenges and destabilize the region. Without these promises the possibility of “absolute” enemies take rise and are also envisioned by the perspective of anti-terrorists. The identification of such an extreme combatant allows for abuse of ethics and degradation of integrity. Coupled with expanding use of non-lethal weapon exploration, the moral battlefield takes an even more precarious stance. For these reasons, and in agreement with Coker, the of the importance to maintain ethical and moral boundaries when facing a combatant willing to sacrifice all decency cannot be more highly stressed.
Laws exist to protect life and property; however, they are only as effective as the forces that uphold them. War is a void that exists beyond the grasps of any law enforcing agency and It exemplifies humankind's most desperate situation. It is an ethical wilderness exempt from civilized practices. In all respects, war is a primitive extension of man. Caputo describes the ethical wilderness of Vietnam as a place "lacking restraints, sanctioned to kill, confronted by a hostile country and a relentless enemy, we sank into a brutish state." Without boundaries, there is only a biological moral c...
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
Orend, Brian. "War." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 28 July 2005. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
John F. Kennedy once famously said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” It has been said a few decades ago but the theme of war is relevant at all times. One might share Kennedy’s point of view, when another one not. The most obvious example of different views and approaches on how to deal with conflicts are of the Western and Eastern civilizations. The Western is focused on physical aggressiveness and getting things done through power and coercion, while the Eastern approach is more philosophical, rational, and strategic. We see such method of approach in Sun Tzu’s military treatise, “The Art of War.” Even though he wrote a manual on how to defeat an enemy, Sun Tzu emphasized that a large portion of success is based on the army’s moral duty, which is cultivated by incentives, leaders’ examples, and the ability to listen to their soldiers.
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
First, war is universal due to its violent nature, violence in its application knows no bounds, and it is the common factor that identifies the war and without it the war is nothing more than a diplomatic effort to reach the end. However, wars blow out only when the diplomacy fails. Violence is the war engine. Although the application of violence evolved through time and its severity varies according to communities, cultures, and the means and methods used. Demonstrating the violence through the application of force to subjugate the enemy is the central idea of war. “War is a clash between major interests,
Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of w...
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Since its adoption by world leaders at the World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (herein R2P) has been hailed as a major achievement in protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing that would be committed by rulers. However, some see the R2P not as an effective human right instrument for civilians’ protection as it appears to be another tool for imperialism. My position in this essay is that I believe the R2P doctrine is a considerable achievement in world politics as it signals to potential perpetrators of mass atrocities that the world would no longer stand by, but will use force when necessary to protect innocent civilians. My position is articulated as follows. First, I will present the content/principles of the R2P doctrine . Second, I will point out the legal and moral argument underpinning the R2P, particularly its military aspect. Finally I will evoke some cases where the R2P has been critical in protecting populations from mass killing and show the shortcoming of those who argue against the R2P.
Morality is hard to define, and nearly impossible to agree upon; however, when it comes to war, there is a single “widely accepted moral theory” that reaches beyond borders . Just war theory, a doctrine originally attributed to the Christian theologian Saint Augustine , postulates that certain circumstances can lead to the justification of war, particularly if war is used to prevent even greater atrocities from occurring in the future. In its fundamental charter, the United Nations even articulates that every state has the right to go to war in its charter. In its broadest definition, just war theory declares that war may be justifiable if the states involved have both jus ad bellum, or just cause, and jus in bello, or just conduct in war;
Amongst military theorists and practitioners who studied war, its origin and implications, Carl von Clausewitz assumes a place among the most prominent figures. With his book On War, he demonstrated his capability to provide thorough historical analysis and conclusions of the conflicts in which he was engaged, and as a philosopher he reflected about all encompassing aspects of war. Today, Western armies conduct modern warfare in a dynamic environment composed of flexible and multiple threats in which civilians form a substantial part. Studying Clausewitz provides current military and political leadership useful insights to understand twenty-first century warfare. He explains the nature of war, provides an analytical tool to understand the chaos of warfare, and he argues for well educated and adaptable leadership capable of creative thinking. Although he died before his work was complete, his writing style was ambiguous and unclear at some moments, and current technology reduced some of his tactics obsolete, his work still arouses and inspires military and political strategists and analysts.
War has been a vital part of living since the beginning of time, by the study of History one can see the ways war has developed over the years. By examining three different sources of various battles one begins to see not only the physical, but also the mental and emotional tolls it takes on the people involved. Throughout history we see the gradual change in war with the advances of critical thinking, war skill, weaponry and the willingness to push the limits. During times of crisis some find themselves experiencing things they would have never experienced physically and psychologically.
All living things need the resources provided by our natural world to live, leading to them adapting to specific environments. Animals in particular are mobile creatures that move from place to place searching for the best environments for their survival. The most intelligent creatures in our animal world are human beings and like other animals, they moved from place to place while organized into races in search of the elusive desirable environments. However, there is always the likelihood of finding fellow humanity already thriving in that environment. This resulted to conflict as competition for the inadequate resources arose. Consequently, human beings formed nations, allegiance to the national system meant loyalty to the governance, and regions and they formed military groups to defend their resources. However, the military warfare has changed with international understanding, though the idea still rests heavily on fight for resources. Further, international politics illustrates the causes and effects of modern military war have changed due to chan...