Last Resort:
The principle of last resort is a proponent of international law, article 2(4) of the UN charter states, ‘the prohibition of the use of force’, (Gray, 2004, p.5). Force should be limited as last resort; therefore, all peaceful options should be used before the use of force. In addition, Michael Walzer agrees with international law. He conveys that, ‘one always wants to see diplomacy tried before the resort to war’. War under the just war principle can be acceptable under the principle of ‘last resort’ (Walzer, 2006, p.84).Walzer conveys that there are always peaceful alternatives available for the prevention of warfare. It is evident by the Security Council; a nation has the right to ‘defend itself, by a discriminate and proportionate use of force as last resort’ (Rychlak, 2004, p.10). The principle of self-defence has been used in modern diplomacy to declare wars. After the 9/11 attack, there was a growing conspiracy upon Iraq holding WMD. Bush feared that Iraq could be a major threat to the US, thus put forward a case for imminent intervention. Due to Iraq’s previous history of attaining WMD during the Gulf war, there were questions upon whether Iraq is a grave threat to global economy. It is noted that the UN set out resolutions to provide peaceful conditions that Iraq had to comply with. However, Iraq failed to comply with resolution 678 and 687, due to the recent knowledge of attainment of WMD. It is argued by Peaceright activist Rabinder (2002) Singh QC and Janet Kentridge (2002) that ‘Iraq’s alleged failure to comply with all or any of the existing 29 UN security Council resolutions would not justify the use of force’ (Shiner.P, AND Williams. A, 2008, p.21). They argued that US is using old resolution to pursue...
... middle of paper ...
...ve to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons since the elimination of the programme in 1990’ (White. D. N, 2009, p. 48). Therefore, it can be argued that intervention on the basis of WMD is not justified and there were no weapons.. There was no attack from Sadden Hussein and no weapons were found.. Many just war theorist argued the war against Iraq. They sought that the principle of last resort did not ‘meet the set conditions’ (Romaya, 2012,p.24). Inspections were placed to enable peaceful alternatives, if inspections were carried fulfil, it would have prevented the intervention of Iraq. Therefore, it can be evaluated that all peaceful measures to prevent the Iraq war were not follow through, the concept of last resort is able to be manipulated. Therefore, under the principle of just war and international law, the Iraq war is inadequate.
This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice. One of the most argued topics today, the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs, still rings in the American ear. Recent studies by historians have argued that the United States really did not make the right choice when they chose to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Also with the release of classified documents, we can see that the United States could have made the choice to use other alternatives besides the use of the atomic weapon.... ... middle of paper ...
Throughout history, there have been countless wars between different groups of people because of race, religion, economic basis, and endless other reasons. More often than not the party that initiated the war was not justified in doing so based on Douglas Lackey’s “just war theory”. One action initiated by the United States that has been furiously debated since the decision was made is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki. While some argue that President Harry S. Truman was wrong in making the decision that he did, I will be arguing that he was correct in deciding to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because there is clear evidence that shows his actions were justified with both statistical proof as well as that the choice coincides with the criteria for “just war theory”.
It is evident that World War II still affects the world today, but are these repercussions the aftermath of a master plan for destruction? The Nazi Party and Hitler were the most significant characters for World War II and thus, they truly made history, however, they made it worse. Many different causes for this devastation have been concluded starting with the end of World War I and the harsh blameful Treaty of Versailles, the new found control in Germany, and the Great Depression; even though was most harmful in America, affected the world in its entirety. Are these the factors that led to the ‘Final Solution’, are these the problems that encouraged Hitler to seize the world? There were many elements prior to World War II leading to the annihilation of Jews, Hitler’s experiences in World War I greatly influenced his outlook on warfare and the Jewish, another predominate factor was the approval of building the camps and chambers in Germany, and lastly the documented intentions for the ‘Final Solution’.
The 1960s was a period well remembered for all the civil rights movements that occurred during that time frame and the impact these movements had on the social and political dynamics of the United States. The three largest movements that were striving in the 1960s were the African American civil rights movement, the New Left movement and the feminist movement. These three movements were in a lot of ways influenced by each other and were very similar in terms of their goals and strategies. However, within each of these movements there were divisions in the way they tried to approach the issues they were fighting against. Looking at each of these movements individually will reveal the relationship they all share as well as the changes that were brought forth as a result of each groups actions.
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.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
The Iraq war, also known as the second Gulf War, is a five-year, ongoing military campaign which started on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S. troops. One of the most controversial events in the history of the western world, the war has caused an unimaginable number of deaths, and spending of ridiculous amounts of money. The reason for invasion war Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, which eventually was disproved by weapons inspectors. Many people question George W. Bush’s decision to engage a war in Iraq, but there might be greater reason why the decision was made. The ideas of George W. Bush might have been sculpted by one of the greatest works of all time, "The Prince."
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
While some theorists assert the just war theory ignores the consequences of war, which are death and destruction, the theory includes several conditions that prohibit entering a war if its consequences are in any way undesirable. The jus ad bellum section asserts that a war must have a reasonable hope for success while achieving just cause and other significant benefits. If it does not, then the purpose of the war is wrong. Moreover, if a war does accomplish its intended benefits, it will be wrong if the destruction it creates is unwarranted, or greater than the benefits. Also, the just war theory includes a last resort condition that prohibits war if its benefits although significant could have been achieved by diplomacy or less destructive means. In order to support my claim, I will circumvent consequentialism by differentiating between the types of benefits and harms and saying only some are relevant to the assessment of a war while others are not.
In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran because of a territorial dispute. This led to a long drawn out war that cost many lives and billions of dollars in damages, with either side unable to claim victory. This paper will focus on the three things that distinguish this war from previous wars. First, it was an excessively protracted and attritive war, lasting eight years, essentially destabilizing the region and devastating both countries. Second, it was a disproportionate war in regards to the means employed by either side. Iraq was supported by Kuwait, the United States, and several other Western European countries, allowing them to acquire advanced weapons and expert training (History.com staff, 2009). Lastly, this war used three modes of warfare not seen in previous wars: ballistic-missile attacks, the use of chemical weapons, and attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf (History.com staff, 2009).
The Just war theory is a doctrine that has been studied by all sorts of leaders, religions, and especially military leaders. Basically it is a doctrine that consists of all sorts of military ethics of war and broken down into two parts, Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Just ad bellum is consisted of 5 parts, the first part is legitimate authority and what that means is that the people who are making the decision of war are recognized officials and understand the strategies of war. The second reason is for a just cause, having the right reasons for going to war and understanding that violent aggression is not the plan. The third is that the last resort is going to war, and being able to understand that before a country starts a war that can be solved in less violent ways. The fourth option is prospect of success, yes winning the war is a success but how many lives can be lost and still count that as a success. The final option is the political proportionality and that is when the wrong of war is proportionally less then the wars cons. I believe that if all non violent options of Just ad bellum have been tried and were given a fair shot and the only viable option is to go to war then going to war is acceptable. But if all non violent option shave not been exhausted and war is nothing but a quick decision this can be considered wrong and
For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq. This proposal met opposition from council members Russia, China, and France. They thought that the U.S. proposal was too aggressive and that the U.S. should not act alone without U.N. approval. For weeks they refused to believe that the only way to make Iraq disarm is through the threat of force and the fear of being wiped out.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...