The War Of Syri The Ethics Of War

65). Syrian’s that are stuck in refugee camps or still living in Syria are fighting for the freedom from authority that they did not agree to, the war has killed over 220,000 people and displaced half of the country’s population (GIlsinan, 2015). The states thus far have responded to the many facets of this crisis with very realist approaches via military action. Realists will tend to prioritize power and place it above and separate from morality and ideology, basing their arguments on tradition and focusing on the power to be gained or lost in the situation (Goldstien, 56). Are force and fraud the most reasonable types of action (Suth, Elias 2007), where is the morality; “More than a third of Americans want to ban Muslims from entering the United states” (Hayoun 2015, The independent). It appears that realism is winning the war against idealism in the US - realism is pessimistic and cynical towards life and human nature, thus there is no hope for a good end of human kind (Najob, Hamed, Gandomikal 2015). One possible motivation of the American people to adopt this very pessimistic and realist way of looking at the crisis and the Muslim population as a whole, is they might assume that liberalist approaches, with its theories in moral reasoning, may

Throughout history, mankind have fought one another at great cost and for almost as long as people have been waging war, people have been asking questions surrounding the morality of war. In ancient Greece Aristotle raised a number of ideals that he believed should be adhered to, he believed that war needed to be regulated by a universal community under natural law. He also criticised the desire to conquer as a valid means of going to war. His views where based on the stoic tenants of virtue and reason. Aristotle’s teaching began to gain traction again in Europe during the 13th century, some of his teachings conflicted with the ideas of the Catholic Church which at the time was a major political power. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica began to combine the Church’s ideals with that of Aristotle’s to present a picture of how war should be. In order for a war to be just, states need to have the right motivations to go to war and they need to conduct themselves in a moral way while at war. This idea of Just War has evolved over the years through theorists such as Vitoria and has been criticised by others such as Erasmus. Now in the 21st century we have a slightly different much more secularised view of Just war. Political theorist Brian Orend, suggests that for a war to be truly just it must also have an ethical end, states must have a valid ‘exit strategy’ that doesn’t leave the country in chaotic ruins after the war. This essay will refer to numerous contemporary

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.

The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.” Jus in bello believes that just war conduct should be governed by the ‘distinction’. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian homes or residential areas that include no military targets and committing acts of terrorism against civilians. Moreover, combatants are not permitted to use violence against enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate threat to life. Just war conduct should also be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective while knowing that the civilian injuries would be so much that the military advantage would not be worth it. Minimal force or military necessity should be taken into account during a just war. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the known and direct

I learned a lot of information concerning the Rules of War in historic and contemporary combat. As I led Chapter 3’s discussion, I could not help but to write down important comments and assertions made by my peers concerning the review. The chapter asserts how morals affect the Rules of War, discusses the left and right limits of following orders in war, and justifies the extent to which the Rules of War can be modified or disregarded. Most importantly, it explains the Two Rules of War, which serve as the foundation of this chapter. Before I can explain the first three main points of this paper, I need to explain the Two Rules of War. In general, it is reasonable to come to the consensus that soldiers in conflict have the equal right to kill.

A combination of factors in Syria, including but not limited to Bashar al-Assad 's regime and its practices against the Sunni majority, the rapid spread of ISIS and its atrocities against the Syrians, and other groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra have led to a civil war that has killed 250,000 people, displaced half of the population,

The theories of just war pose limits from the ethics, law and policy to avoid arbitrariness in the outburst, to drive and the culmination of armed conflicts, asymmetric and irregular today. They are therefore from current frameworks of thought, resort to dialogue with its own ancient and classical tradition that has not lost validity to many new forms of armed confrontation actors who, like yesterday, are human beings who decide responsibly or not to undertake them and confront them.

The idea of peace in the Middle East has been fought over, discussed, caused physical battles, and political name-calling. The conflict caused by misunderstanding the will of God and the pride of man has been history's leitmotif since the beginning of recorded time. In certain parts of the world, that recurrent theme is more of a constant heartbeat. Since the outbreak of the second intifada, people around the world have witnessed many bloody scenes where people sacrifice their lives for their own justification of peace. Many people had a hard time believing their own eyes when viewing a photo shot of a father trying to protect his son from pouring bullets and another shot of a frightened 12-year-old boy killed as his father tried to

Reading from the three essays: “from The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, “from The Prince” by Niccola Machiavelli, and “Warfare: An Invention” by Margaret Mead, all have same but different perspectives. The three readings all revolve around war, violence and aggression. Reading these three essays can give a different perspective on warfare. The ways of the three components in these readings, war, violence and aggression and the way the human body works as to how people work, is amazing. The authors show war, violence and aggression through these pieces to compare and contrast their ideas and moral of warfare.

Justice demands adherence to the six jus ad bellum principles for a war to be deemed just; the principle of just cause; right intent; proper authority and public declaration; last resort; probability of success and proportionality. It is universally accepted that self defence from an external aggressor is a just cause for hostilities. It is widely accepted that defence of others from an external aggressor is just, for example, the collective security provisions in NATO alliance. However, our subject of analysis is the most contentious. Just War theorists significantly diverge on the legitimacy of the defence of innocents from internal aggressors, or humanitarian interventions. However, many Just War theorists also believe that ethnic, cultural, religious, and political minorities are owed protection. I maintain that NATO fulfils the just cause for the use of force because the FRY’s forces intended to exterminate Kosovo Albanians. The NATO intervention must not only be just, but also have the right intent. For example, the American intervention in Cuba had a just cause, however, the US administration had dubious intentions. The justice of intent is difficult to assess due to epistemic limitations, or lack of accessibility to the truth. Moreover, it is worthy to ask whether states ever

1. When reading this work my initial impression is that the world has gone into a time that extraterrestrial beings have decided to destroy earth and humanity has been fighting back.

War is generally considered a to be a heinous act, a harbinger of death, destruction and disaster. War is often fought for ignorant reasons such as wealth and property, although defence and fighting for the greater good is often exhibited through history. Its facile to claim that war is unjustifiable under personal or political reasons, or that it’s a waste of human life and that passive resistance is the key. Nevertheless, in opposition, there are particular circumstances in which war is justifiable. Examples of this are: Under international bodies of law (Geneva and Haug conventions), the principals of the ‘just war theory’ which is in stark contrast to 2 other approaches on the concept of war, being ‘Pacifism’ and ‘Realism’, as well as Islamic reasoning on the conduct, “darurah” (necessity) and justifications of initiating or continuing conflict as well as theoretical and historical understandings of what it means for a war to be just. An ongoing example being the war on Israeli occupation by the Palestinians, another example being the British interference in the Second World War against the belligerent Nazi regime. Although, in retrospect, the Second World War is also used in pacifist ideologies, against war justification. Various academic enumerations interpret and apply the renowned “just war Theory” including Peter S.Temes’s “The just war: an American reflection on the morality of war in our times as well as discussions on the Islamic etiquettes of war in Youssef H.

Since 2011, the lives of those living in Syria have been flipped upside down. The Syrian people have been forced to endure the infringement of human rights by their own government, which is trying to punish and defeat rebels who are protesting against the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. Security forces killed some protesters in an attempt to strike fear in them and end the protesting. However, the Syrian people only became more infuriated and would not silence themselves. Shortly after, the war broke out between the government and rebels. This war continues to this day, and in 2014, a new problem arose - the introduction of terrorists into the country. Both the civil war and the presence of ISIS has made the violation of human rights within Syria a daily occurrence. The government’s vicious and ruthless mindset has caused them to break rights declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically articles three, four, and thirteen.

Technologies of Precision Guided Munitions have been put forward by some scholars and government as ethical solutions the challenges of killing non-combatants in military operations. USA Presidents Bush and Obama both praised these technologies as having reduced significantly the number of casualties.

War. This three letter word cannot describe the true horrors and the calamities caused by it. It cannot accurately show the pain of losing a loved one or the bloodshed and loss caused by the slaughtering of thousands. Rather than affecting the body as much, war has been shown to attack the mind and drive many mad and distraught, swaying them away from their former selves. Just like how the body surges with adrenaline from the fight or flight response, war also affects our minds in a very similar way. As a result of being near or a part of the warfare, triggers a series of emotions and sensations that changes one 's way of life. Throughout the course of history, these character changes have shown their power of drastically altering a person 's mental wellbeing and have made their mark in society through common representation in Old English poems, famous late-1900s literature and modern day talk shows.