Sentences with phrase «ad bellum»
The phrase "ad bellum" is Latin and it means "towards war" or "for the purpose of war." It is often used in discussions about the justifications, motivations, or reasons for going to war. Full definition
Unlike the seven jus ad bellum criteria of just war theory, I believe there are three key political tests which give a good indication of whether a population will tolerate overseas intervention.
totalpolitics.com
The question was: Did U.S. Catholics have enough information at their disposal in September and October of last year to be able to apply the ius ad bellum criteria?
And whatever one says about that jus ad bellum question, it seems evident that we have failed to pass the jus post bellum test (to use a phrase from Michael Walzer).
James Turner Johnson has expressed the same concerns in a different way, arguing that satisfying the classic ad bellum or war - decision criterion of «right intention» includes the commitment to securing a just peace after the conclusion of combat.
Put differently, ius ad bellum deals with the «cause» of war and ius in bello with the «conduct» of war.
When General H. Norman Schwartzkopf said the next day that «all Saddam Hussein needs to do to stop our killing civilians is to surrender,» he replaced a restraint in bello with an accusation ad bellum.
Most basically, by beginning with the notion that all violence is evil he insures that his major concerns focus on the jus ad bellum choice to use forceful or coercive means, not with what the jus in bello principles of discrimination and proportionality may tell us with regard to right conduct in the war on terror.
Israel has yet to provide a public legal justification for the Al - Kibar operation under jus ad bellum.
In this Christian teaching, the criteria of just war are divided into two categories» ius ad bellum and ius in bello.
The a priori presumption against recourse to war needs to be overridden by fact - based warrants (jus ad bellum); once hostilities are undertaken the means must be legitimate and proportionate (jus in bello).
Such, all too briefly, are the criteria pertinent to the decision to go to war» ius ad bellum.
The decisions pertinent to ius ad bellum are reasoned and principled.
For most of its history the energies of the church have been focused, not on how to abolish war, but on how to go to war justly (jus ad bellum) and how to fight a war in a just manner (jus in bello).
In discussing Iraq, terrorism and international conflicts, Elshtain invokes the «just war» tradition, formulated by Augustine, which speaks of «just cause» (jus ad bellum) for war and insists on the «just means» (jus in bello) of fighting war.
Still, she was uncertain: «While jus ad bellum, the occasion for a resort to force, is met and the rules of engagement meet jus in bello stipulations, the unknowns are such that prudential considerations tell us to stay our hand.»
But this is not IHL (jus in bello) proportionalitybut the sort of proportionality we think of when applying the law of self defence in the jus ad bellum: does the overall amount or direction of the force used go beyond what would be needed to achieve the goal?
The limitations on force authorised by the UN Security Council should be thought of, instead, in terms similar to the jus ad bellum and in terms similar to what we have in the law of self defence.
There is a distinction between whether a war is just (jus ad bellum) and whether it is being conducted in a just manner (jus in bello).
The argument that an effects — based approach to jus ad bellum is adequate is all the more compelling when we consider some of the possible negative consequences of expanding the definition of «war» that results from the instrument — based approach.
The law of war covers the issues of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, that is, what constitutes «armed attack,» «use of force,» and when a state can defend itself with military force, as well as how states should conduct themselves once armed conflict has begun.
I'm speaking now of the Hague and Geneva conventions, those legal limits to the conduct of war (jus in bello)-- there are also legal justifications for engaging in war (jus ad bellum), something else again.
Israel has yet to provide a public legal justification for the Al - Kibar operation under jus ad bellum.