Sentences with phrase «just use of force»

This latter tradition is the tradition that includes the Augustinian conception of good politics as a just, and thus peaceful, social order; an associated conception of international relations; and the idea of just war defining the instrumentality of the just use of force in the service of both.

In terms of the just war tradition regarding the just use of force, its most important defects are those stemming from the lack of sovereign authority.

Not exact matches

You want to use a to - do list not just as a list of tasks, but as a system for forcing you to think about what's most important to you.

Tips to keep meetings from gobbling up your team's days are all over the map, including forcing employees to pay for the time they use out of a set budget of «credits» — or just making everyone stand up.

But the number of entrepreneurs who want to use commerce in ways great or small as a force not just for profit but also for good is growing.

Missile strikes on Syrian government bases overnight killed dozens of pro-regime forces, raising the risks of a wider regional war just weeks after Israel was blamed for hitting an air station in the country used by Iranian elite forces.

One of the tricks that large LBO firms use is to purchase at just enough of a «premium» to essentially force a sale as the company board has to satisfy their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders....

This announcement comes just weeks after the Uber self - driving car accident that killed a young woman in Arizona, forcing the Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to respond, saying: «First of all, Uber does not use Nvidia's DRIVE technology.

So... I think you're forced to use our system if you have your wits about you... Warren and I once reached the decision, we wouldn't pay more than X dollars for something and the man who was a subordinate to both of us who was working on it just said, «You guys are out of your minds.

In these pages, papal biographer and theologian George Weigel rejects the notion that any thinking about just war ought to begin with a «presumption against the use of force,» as it seems Pope Francis has done.

By the way, I have not left, the deleter just forced me to use a myriad of different names to post under so I do not get posts automatically deleted just because my name is on it.

It is a game that people use to derail the real meat of a conversation, in this case are her beliefs justified enough to force them onto other people or are they just mindless ramblings passed from one «zombie» to the next?

Violence is not just the use of armed force.

Scripture does not condemn self defense, including the use of force for JUST purposes.

The first requires the use of no more force than is necessary to vindicate the just cause.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed individual citizens the rights to own arms JUST AS GOOD as those of the regular soldiers they might have to oppose in an armed rebellion — the very sort of armed rebellion that the writers of the 2nd Amendment had recently successfully engaged in, defeating the most powerful military force on the planet using their own guns, which were JUST AS GOOD as what the British regulars and their Hessian mercenaries had.

The idea that Catholic just war teaching begins with a «presumption against war,» more recently phrased as «a strong presumption against the use of force,» first appears in the United States bishops» widely read 1983 pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace.

Of course there were others at the same time making similar claims, just as President Carter made them a decade later in the context of another debate over the justness of the United States» use of force against Saddam Hussein's IraOf course there were others at the same time making similar claims, just as President Carter made them a decade later in the context of another debate over the justness of the United States» use of force against Saddam Hussein's Iraof another debate over the justness of the United States» use of force against Saddam Hussein's Iraof the United States» use of force against Saddam Hussein's Iraof force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

In the Catholic conception of just war, the use of force may be necessary to right wrongs and to establish peace.

The mainstream of Christian ethics has contended that there can be a legitimate or «just» use of military force — legitimacy being determined by a variety of factors, such as the presence of a «just cause,» «right authority,» «last resort,» and the use of «means proportional to the end.»

The second challenge is to examine in depth what should count as just cause for use of force in the contemporary context.

Such intention in the classic just war tradition, as we have seen, includes the avoidance of wrong intentions, which easily translate from Augustine's list into familiar contemporary evils: aggressive war for the aggressor's sole benefit; wars for reasons based on religious, ethnic, or ideological difference; use of force aimed at terrorizing or oppressing those on whom it falls for the benefit of the wielder of power.

The fourth challenge arises from how war is conceived, for this is fundamental both for the question of a just resort to force and for right conduct in the use of such force.

Those who have this authority and responsibility must first determine whether the use of force would satisfy the primary moral requirements of just cause and right intention and the purpose of restoring peace.

After reducing the just causes for resort to force to one, self - defense (§ 2308), the Catechism further limits this in § 2309 by four prudential conditions, all of which it says must be satisfied: «the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or the community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective [last resort]; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

If one reads recent Catholic just war thinking one regularly finds the idea of right intention collapsed into just cause or used to reinforce that moral requirement, as in this formulation from the Catholic bishops of the United States: «Force may be used only for a truly just cause and solely for that purpose.»

How any of this constitutes an advance in moral reasoning or moral sensibility over the classic just war understanding» that the use of armed force can be noble or wicked, just or unjust, depending on who is using it, toward what ends, and how» is unclear to me.

All my life I have been «forced» to be off from school / work for Christmas, but for my holidays, had to resort to using vacation days at work or just missing two days of school per year to celebrate Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.

In just that context he must renounce all use of force, turn the other cheek when affronted, and give his last garment to whoever asks for it.

• Enemy combatants: I am a just war theorist, and affirm proportionality as a means of using force.

The section on just war theory closed with a warm affirmation of the value of a pacifist witness within the Catholic Church, claiming that it shares with just war theory «a common presumption against the use of force as a means of settling disputes.»

Finally, we wonder what Prof. Cole can possibly mean when he says that it is «a sad fact that Christians are always going to have to use violence» and yet also maintain that when just warriors use force justly, «such acts bear no stain of evil.»

She also thought that the conduct of the war had met the just war principle of proportionality, which calls for using the minimal level of force needed to achieve the intended object.

Disagreements will arise over the seriousness of particular threats, whether «just cause» and «last resort» are present for the use of military force, the utility of nonviolent and persuasive methods, whether a missile defense system (required by the strategy paper) is itself defensible practically and morally, and whether the U.S. should make interventionary decisions unilaterally or with international consent and support.

I don't know about your country, but in mine, that particular word — «socialism» — was transformed long ago into just an ordinary truncheon used by certain cynical, parvenu bureaucrats to bludgeon their liberal - minded fellow citizens from morning until night, labeling them «enemies of socialism» and «antisocialist forces.

The just war tradition came into being during the Middle Ages as a way of thinking about the right use of force in the context of responsible government of the political community.

By requiring Catholic organizations (such as schools and hospitals) to cover contraception and sterilization does not force anyone to to get contraceptives or to be sterilized, it just means if the employees of these organizations have insurance coverage of contraceptives IF they CHOOSE to use contraceptives or an operation such as a vasectomy or tubal ligation for sterilization.

As much as I think ALL religion is a crock and that common sense should trump religious dogma, to force people who don't want to use the service is just as wrong as the church trying to deny it to everyone regardless of their faith.

The probability of success is an important just war principle; another is proportional use of force.

From the perspective of classic statements of the just war idea, there was no question that one might justifiably use force to prevent an attack by a wrongdoer as well as to repair the injustice caused by such an attack or to punish the attacker.

They did not prioritize defense against armed attack, and certainly did not define just cause in terms of such self - defense, reflecting Augustine's conception of just war [as one in which] a Christian might justifiably use force to protect an innocent neighbor against harm.

To use force against governments that support terrorists surely lies within the proper scope of American policy as well as the definition of just war.

So someone just informed me that Todd Bentley (of the famous Lakeland Outpouring who uses force when he «heals» people) was refused admittance to the UK today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/21/todd-bentley-refused-entry-to-uk

I just love this group of super talented ladies that I've joined forces with to share a recipe using 12 ingredients -LCB- or less -RCB- on the 12th of each month.

Now it just so happens that RR has joined forces with the new round of AlphaBakes and it has been decided to start at the very beginning this time, with the letter A. Using my usual Eat Your Books method of selection I came out with the book Pasties by Lindsey Bareham.

Besides the glass used for the bottles that prevents the absorption of ultraviolet rays, a drop of liquid nitrogen sparge is added to each bottle just before capping to force out the oxygen that causes spoilage.

Supermarkets charging just 89p for four pints of milk and forcing the dairy farmers to supply milk below cost is extremely unfair, and is using market domination to bully producers,» Davis» statement continued.

He is a squad player at best, and just like Giroud he should be happy to be part of the team, coz other managers not like Wenger would sell him a long time ago, a not force him into playing on the behalf us even losing games at times due of him being used no matter what due of Wengers obsession of making him a star.

You know, I just assumed there would be a tool to fix this so I was completely shocked when he used all of his force to adjust the rim.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits