As I have argued in these pages and elsewhere, the «presumption,» by detaching the just war way of thinking from its proper political context» the right use of sovereign public authority toward the end of tranquillitas ordinis, or peace» tends to invert the structure of classic just war analysis and turn it into a thin casuistry, giving priority consideration to necessarily contingent in bello judgments (proportionality of means, discrimination or noncombatant immunity) over what were always understood to be the prior
ad bellum questions («prior» in that, inter alia, we can have a greater degree of moral clarity about them).
Not exact matches
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?
Whether one deems this cluster of
questions the third part of an expanded just war tradition or an extension of «right intention,» one of the classic deontological
ad bellum criteria, this is obviously an area in which considerable criticism of the Iraq War has been focused» whether the issue at hand involves the scandals at Abu Ghraib prison, interrogation methods, de-Baathification policies, counterinsurgency strategies and tactics, or the provisions of the new Iraqi constitution with respect to religious freedom and the role of Islamic law in post-Saddam Iraq.
For some time now, certain just war thinkers have suggested that there is a third cluster of
questions to be pursued in a thorough just war analysis: In addition to the war - decision
questions of the ius
ad bellum and the war - conduct
questions of the ius in bello, there are
questions of what Michael Walzer has called the ius post
bellum.