Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Terrorism in international relations
Terrorism as a violation of human rights
International relations and terrorism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Terrorism in international relations
The Just War tradition has been seen as a leading perspective on the ethics of war since the writings of St Augustine were rearticulated by Thomas Aquinas. It attempts to provide a framework which validates just conflicts, whilst at the same time applying limits so as to prevent unrestrained warfare. Today, its core principles can be divided into two broad categories: ‘jus ad bellum’ (just resort to war) and ‘jus in bello’ (just conduct in war). For a war to be just, numerous criteria must be satisfied within these categories.
In recent decades non-state terrorism has become increasingly high-profile; indeed, in the twenty first century it has dominated the global political agenda. It is pertinent therefore, to question whether terrorism can be ethically assessed using the Just War tradition.In this essay, I will argue that it is possible to ethically evaluate terrorism by employing Just War principles. I will show that terrorists can satisfy the most important criterion of the Just War tradition. Firstly, they can represent a ‘legitimate authority’ and can have a ‘just cause’. Secondly, terrorism can be a ‘last resort’ and offers a ‘reasonable prospect of success’. Finally, whilst many terrorists do adhere to the principle of ‘discrimination’, the notion of ‘non-combatant immunity’ and civilian innocence is over-simplified. Furthermore, terrorists may perceive themselves to be in a ‘supreme emergency’, therefore meaning the rules of war cease to exist. Terrorism can satisfy the principle of proportionality.
However, before I begin my argument, I must establish a working definition for ‘terrorism’; an important and controversial issue in itself. Walzer describes it as ‘like rape and murder… an attack upon the innocent’ (2005...
... middle of paper ...
...Family Research Council, Accessed Online: 07/11/2010
Roberts, Adams, (1989), ‘Ethics, Terrorism and Counter Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence 1 (1), pp. 48-70
Schmidt Alex P, and Jongman Albert I, (1998) ‘Political Terrorism’ (Amsterdam, Transaction Books)
Smilanski, Saul, (2004), ‘Terrorism, Justification and Illusion’, Ethics, 114, July pp. 790-805
Valls, Andrew, (2000), ‘Can Terrorism Be Justified’, In Andre Valls (ed.), Ethics in International Affairs, pp. 65-80
Walzer, Michael, (1992), ‘Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations’, (New York: Basic Books)
Walzer, Michael, (2005), ‘Arguing About War’, (Yale Nota Bene)
Wilkins, Burleigh Taylor, (1992), ‘Terrorism and collective responsibility’, (New York : Routledge)
US State Department, (2005), ‘Country Reports on Terrorism’, Accessed online: 15/11/2010
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
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...
Clearly, the UN definition being more general as any act of terror, it is found that revolutionary groups adopt the use of categorical terrorism because it is commonly cheaper than selective terrorism. Further, Goodwin argues that categorical terrorism is employed for the purpose of attacking and threatening what he calls “complicitous civilians.” Complicitous civilians are defined as (1) civilians who often benefit from state actions that the revolutionaries oppose, (2) those that support the state, (3) or civilians who have the ability to influence the state. The primary directive of categorical terrorism is to provoke complicitous civilians from further supporting the state. By applying intense...
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
Augustine illustrated on the prevailing Roman doctrine of justum bellum and the Old Testament stories of wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as demanded by God. Augustine aimed that fighting on behalf of the Roman Empire was a Christian obligation since the empire was Christian. Augustine maintained that this was fighting on behalf of God against God’s enemies, just as Israel defended itself against God’s enemies in Old Testament times. Augustine’s thinking has backed greatly to the discussion of what makes warfare justifiable right up until the modern day.
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
Response to terrorism. FreeRepublic, LLC, 10 Febuary 2001. Web. 5 Apr. 2014. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/537799/posts.
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
Terrorism has been around for centuries and religion-based violence has been around just as long. (Hoffman, 2). The violence was never referred to as terrorism though. Only up to the nineteenth century has religion been able to justify terrorism (Hoffman, 2). Since then, religious terrorism became motivated and inspired by the ideological view (Hoffman, 3). Therefore, it has turned against the main focus of religion and more towards the views of the extremist and what is happening politically (Winchester, 4).
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
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.
In early 1974, the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, invited the Palestinian Liberation Organization to attend the General Assembly gathering on November 13, 1974, and in doing so gave legitimacy to the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a governing body. In Yasser Arafat’s speech to the General Assembly, he thanked the United Nations for recognizing his organization and its legitimacy. When Arafat addressed the General Assembly, he made the argument that the actions taken by his government were not acts of terrorism, but these were acts of revolution and their purpose was to regain control of Palestine’s occupied original territory. The problem we confront is, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism and the international community should be able to come up with one. The major hurdle in defining is the states’ ideas of what terrorism is.