Metrics
15 Record Views
Journal article
Altering Jus ad Bellum: Just War in the 21st Century and the 2002 Security Strategy of the United States
Critique - A Worldwide Student Journal of Politics
Spring 2005
Abstract
In the aftermath of September 11th, the war against Afghanistan, and the recent war in Iraq, just war theory has become a focal point of discussion in
international affairs. Due to the fact that the Bush administration justified the Iraqi war on preemptive principles, preemptive wars have become an even greater focus. As just war theory enters the twenty-first century and the new war on terrorism unfolds, two questions arise: Are the jus ad bellum principles of just war theory flexible enough to be applicable to a new international system where Cold War strategies are no longer pertinent? If so, should there be an alteration to the limited exception of preemptive selfdefense, which would justify the Bush administration’s use of anticipatory self-defense as set forth in the National Security Strategy of 2002?
In order to answer these questions, first I will undertake a survey of the origin and development of just war theory. Then, an examination of the distinction between preemptive and preventive self-defense will follow. To better understand the distinction, current just war principles will be applied to empirical cases which include; World War I, the Six-Day War, the war in Afghanistan, and the second Iraqi War. Following the empirical cases is an analysis of the Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy, and its relationship to just war theory. Lastly, a brief examination of how the international community alters international law is conducted to determine the viability of changes to jus ad bellum laws.
After all analysis is complete, the answers to the previous two questions will become apparent. History shows that just war theory is very flexible and indeed owes its survival to an ability to adapt to new international systems. Therefore, while the theory can adjust to the postSeptember 11th world, there is a limit to its flexibility. Because of this, President Bush’s concept of anticipatory self-defense is, and will continue to be, unjust according to international law.
Details
- Title
- Altering Jus ad Bellum
- Publication Details
- Critique - A Worldwide Student Journal of Politics
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Publisher
- Illinois State University, Department of Politics and Government
- Identifiers
- 99380589396706600
- Academic Unit
- College of Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities; Reubin O'D. Askew Department of Government
- Language
- English