Sentences with phrase «jus ad»

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.

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.

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.

Israel has yet to provide a public legal justification for the Al - Kibar operation under jus ad bellum.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.»

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.

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).

The problem of the prudential jus ad bellum criteria.

Arguably they are elements in the prudent exercise of statecraft, but including them as specific requirements of the jus ad bellum is a comparatively recent development.

Second, the logic of the classic just war tradition is reversed, so that within the jus ad bellum several recently invented prudential criteria are employed as if they were the most important, with correspondingly diminished attention to the fundamental deontological criteria, those described as «necessary» by Aquinas.

As we have seen, Thomas Aquinas» jus ad bellum consists of the requirements of sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention, including the purpose of peace, often listed as a separate requirement in recent just war thought.

Since without such authority there is no entity competent to determine just cause, exercise right intention, aim at the establishment of peace, and control armed forces in accord with the moral limits of the jus in bello, this lack of sovereignty means that the United Nations as an institution can not have a jus ad bellum in the fundamental just war sense.