Comparing Kennan's Just And Unjust Wars

This paper will define and determine the criteria for warfare, argue that neither the 9/11 attacks nor the resulting counterterrorism reactions take after the conventional standards of Just War theory: these events cannot be portrayed as just under the guidelines of jus ad bellum or jus in bello. More importantly, the events should not be classified or regarded as a war. Rather, these related acts are criminal offences that were toss under the label of warfare due to the American interpretation of 9/11 as a ‘first strike’ tactic which in turn prompted a military response, setting in motion an international standard. The resulting ‘war’ has arguably been a series of violations of international law.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace and safety. The just war can only be waged as a last resort requiring that all reasonable non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war can be just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. An array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare.

The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

After reviewing the just war theory in relation to the war in Iraq, it is assessed the Iraq war did not meet the requirements for the Iraq war. Michael Walzer stated that, ‘the Iraq war was an unnecessary war and unnecessary wars are also unjust wars’ (Religion and Ethics news weekly, 2009, Online). As a result, the Iraq war did not have a plausible cause or authorisation for intervention. Due to the failure to assess whether Iraq did conceal WMD, Weapons inspector David Kay argues that, ‘If you cannot rely on good, accurate intelligence’ then ‘you can have a policy of pre-emption’ (Hinnebusch, 2007, P.24). As a result, Iraq has become a case of ‘imperial overreach’ (Hinnebusch, 2007, P.24). Kay argues the US is able to bypass the UN authorisation by enforcing an imminent attack. As a result, political and military manipulation can indicate that the US can withhold extensive powers. For that reason, there has been a growing concern for accountable in terms for enforcing warfare. In particular, due to the nationwide protest against the Iraq war, political accountability has became an important factor in the democratic process. The government did not have support from the people. This implies that democracy can be questioned. For that reason, the public can hold a governmental official to account by changing them in the next general election. Furthermore, the International criminal court ‘establishes to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most

Although wars cause much devastation in countries even in the world, the Just War Theory may be applied to determine whether or not a war was justly distributed through particular principles and conditions. Led by the United States in Iraq, the Gulf War caused much controversy and tension between nations. Not only did it left a scar on foreign policy but the citizens of Iraq were greatly affected. Through Thomas Aquinas Just War Theory principles and Catholic teachings, the Iraq war can be proven to be an unjust conflict due to a large number of casualties, expensive costs, and unsuccessful turnabout.

The intent of this review is to evaluate the concept of "Just Post Bellum" that the article 's author, Gary J. Bass, developed through an empirical theoretical research about the doctrine of Just War. The way the author adapts the evidence found in the speeches of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter makes us think he tends to justify somewhat recent interventions the United States made in the Middle East when he says: "Both presidents explained that for a free state a just war, must show not only that went to war for good reasons, but also that their conduct war was consistent with that purpose: to help make the most stable region and safe, and leaving affected populations less subject to violence and oppression." However, Gary J. Bass also provides constructive criticism and compiles theoretical concepts of importance of various classical and contemporary authors from the realistic-idealistic point of view of several events that promote an understanding of clear concepts of Just War and their relevance in the context of a globalized world. The author refutes the conventional perception that "Political leaders often invoke postwar evolution as bringing democracy or stability as part of justifying or condemning a war," (P. 384), when in reality other standards of postwar evolution exist.

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

Realism is one of the oldest and most popular theories in International Relations. It offers a perspective about competition and power, and can be used to explain the actions between states. An example of realism is the U.S. reaction – or lack thereof – during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

The assumption that there are a morally significant achievements that can be made in war seems paramount to just war theory. Taking a life without certainty of of the necessity of doing so undermines the value of that life. Because international relations provides such an ambiguous and subjective subject matter to apply just killing theory to, pacifism seems to be the approach most likely to encourage peace.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

In this essay’s scope, the Syrian war has been analyzed using the just war theory. The just war theory highlights situations where waging a war can be justifiable and also provides guidelines on how a war should be fought. In as much as the theory recognizes the need to protect innocent human life even when it involves the use of force, the theory puts in place several principles that need to be met to qualify a war as being just. As for the Syrian situation, the bone of contention is whether the proposed US military intervention is justifiable or not. Those who are for a US military intervention observe that the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention. They point out that an intervention would protect further loss of innocent human life. Those against such a move point out some guidelines that have not been met to merit such an intervention as a just

Classical realist theory is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently bad and selfish, the international system is anarchic, and the state is the most important actor in international affairs. Basing policy decisions on human nature, the state looks to maximize it’s power and security within its geographic location. Realist theory sees all conflict deriving from power struggles between states, though it is not about fostering wars; rather the opposite.

The “just cause criterion is central in the “just war” doctrine. When assessing the sufficient “just cause” reasons the principle of self-defence is undoubtedly tolerable. It can be extended to the reason of assisting aid to victims of oppression or external threat (Moseley n.d.). Following this principle, the mass murder of the Syrian civilians by the government forces that reached nearly 40000 (Aloyo 2014) create a justified cause for the USA and the international community in general. However, in the case of Syria using forces against the aggression as a whole will be an impossible task, as both parties

Realism in international relations theory is one of the dominant schools of thought in international relations. Realism or political realism prioritizes national interests and security concerns in addition to moral ideology and social reconstruction. The term is often associated with political power. The term is often associated with political power.