1. Refer to . What distinguishes preemptive war from preventive war? Consider the case of Germany in World War II and answer Walzer's question: Is regime change ever a just cause of war?
2. The international community has been unable to come together under the banner of just war to stop genocide in the Sudan. What political factors constrain the waging of a just war? What obligation does the international community have to declare just war? Compare the Sudanese case to that of Rwanda, Iraq, and Kosovo. What similarities/differences are there between these cases and how do they relate to the concept of just war?
3. The 2006 mid-term election sparked contentious debate on American's role in Iraq, particularly with regards to America's role jus post bellum. What responsibility does the United States have in the reconstruction of Iraq?
27-35. Adapted from a paper presented at the International Studies Association, Portland, OR, 28February 2003.
ofShannon French, The Code of the Warrior, published in Parameters, Spring2004.
"Just-War Criteria and the War in Iraq," Journal ofLutheran Ethics 3/4 (20 April 2003).
"Our Accountability for Afghan Civilian Deaths: Some Insights fromShakespeare's Henry V," Journal of Lutheran Ethics 2/11 (25November 2002). Adapted from a lecture at the National Character and LeadershipSymposium, U.S.
Military Engagements" for a regional meeting of the American Association ofUniversity Women, Dickinson College, 27 April 2004.
With professors Susan Feldman and Russell Bova, I facilitated a studentdiscussion at Dickinson College on ethical issues in the interrogation of terroristsuspects, "Torture: How Far Should We Go?" 27 April 2004
keynote address for a conference on Corporate Social Responsibility and Values-BasedManagement, Roskilde U., Denmark, 5 December 2003.
"Military Ethics after 9-11 and the Iraq War," a lecturesponsored by the Philosophical Forum, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1 December 2003.
Quoted on the problem of collateral civilian war casualties inAfghanistan and Iraq, in an article by Mette Joergensen for Copenhagen's daily paper Information,1 December 2003.
invited lecture for a symposium at Dickinson College, 18 November 2003.
Lectured on comparative religious ethics and warfare for an SCU LawSchool course on "Legal Aspects of War: Humanitarian Law," 12 February 2003.
Quoted on the denial of organ transplants to violent felons in KevinHanley, "Common Sense: One Heart, One Armed Robber, and the Other 4119Patients," Auburn (CA) Sentinel, 7 February 2003.
Invited panelist responding to Abdulaziz Sachedina, Sohail Hashmi andJohn Kelsay on ethics and warfare in Islam for an annual meeting of American Lutheranethicists, Pittsburgh, PA, 9 January 2003. Subsequently interviewed by five radionetworks, including CBS Radio.
Wrote and edited articles on "Challenges in Teaching Ethics toUndergraduates," July-August 2002, for publication on the Markkula Ethics Centerwebsite.
Wrote "Ethical Issues on Campus" with questions, commentaryand web resources for use in undergraduate student orientation and other campus fora,May-July 2002, to be posted on the Markkula Ethics Center website.
Lectured on ethics in genetics and neurology, Unitarian-UniversalistFellowship of Sunnyvale, July 14 and 18, 2002.
Lectured on evolutionary roots of human violence for a Religous Studiescourse taught by David Pleins, 28 May 2002.
Quoted in Mike Zapler, "Lawyer's City Ties under Scrutiny: S.J.
Much recent work has used either traditionalist or revisionist justwar theory to consider new developments in the practice of warfare,especially the use of drones, and the possible development ofautonomous weapons systems. Others have focused on the ethics ofnon-state conflicts, and asymmetric wars. Very few contemporary warsfit the nation-state model of the mid-twentieth century, and conflictsinvolving non-state actors raise interesting questions for legitimateauthority and the principle of Discrimination in particular (Parry2016). A third development, provoked by the terrible failure to planahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the wave of reflection on theaftermath of war. This topic, jus post bellum, is addressedseparately.
When U.S. combat deaths in Iraq reached the 1000 mark in September, the event captured worldwide attention. Combat deaths are seen as a measure of the magnitude and dangerousness of war, just as murder rates are seen as a measure of the magnitude and dangerousness of violence in our communities. Both, however, are weak proxies. Little recognized is how fundamentally important the medical system is — and not just the enemy's weaponry — in determining whether or not someone dies. U.S. homicide rates, for example, have dropped in recent years to levels unseen since the mid-1960s. Yet aggravated assaults, particularly with firearms, have more than tripled during that period. The difference appears to be our trauma care system: mortality from gun assaults has fallen from 16 percent in 1964 to 5 percent today.
Though I may not have the statistics to make a statement n whether the war has helped or not; there is enough evidence to support that it has succeeded in denting the image of anyone who has Islamic affiliations. Mention the name Mohammed and immediately people start thinking of terrorism. The tendentious reporting has neglected the human side in the Iraqi war. Mainstream media never shows video coverage of the women and children suffering and always focus on the bigger picture of democracy and the elimination of insurgent groups in Iraq. According to the World Bank development indicators, the population of Iraq is 31.5 million. It is surprising that the news only seen is about how the militant groups are organizing themselves against the US troops. If the existence of the US troops in Iraq was truly an effort to return it to democracy, then why should the media take such extreme measures to depict the citizens as social misfits? Evidently there is more than meets the eye. The particular terminologies used to describe the Muslims have always been bent on putting Christians and Muslims on a colliding path. The media has enormous capacities in shaping the opinions, perspectives and preferences of the world’s population. With no limiting bodies, mainstream media operate within the prescriptions o f the sponsors. There is no telling to what limits that the media can go in shaping opinions when the sponsor is the government. Fox news can be taken as an example of a mainstream media that has always gone to extreme lengths to defend the Iraqi war. It takes little time to realize that some interviews that are held on some media channels are premeditated and the result and proceedings are predicted.
In early 2002, the Bush administration announced that it considered Iraq to be part of an “axis of evil.” Though arms inspections made increasing progress after their return in November and a large majority insisted that the inspections continue, United States invaded Iraq in alliance with Britain on March 20, 2003.
The introduction to the United Nations Charter - the law shared by many nations in the world - states: "We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims." The first article of the Charter says that the purpose of the United Nations is to "maintain international peace and security" and to suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace".
The collective dimensions of warfare could be more fullyexplored. Several philosophers have considered how soldiers “acttogether” when they fight (Zohar 1993; Kutz 2005; Bazargan2013). But few have reflected on whether group agency is present andmorally relevant in war. And yet it is superficially very natural todiscuss wars in these terms, especially in evaluating the war as awhole. When the British parliament debated in late 2015 whether tojoin the war against ISIL in Syria and Iraq, undoubtedly each MP wasthinking also about what she ought to do. But most of themwere asking themselves what the United Kingdom ought todo. This group action might be wholly reducible to the individualactions of which it is composed. But this still raises interestingquestions: in particular, how should I justify my actions, as anindividual who is acting on behalf of the group? Must I appeal only toreasons that apply to me? Or can I act on reasons that apply to thegroup’s other members or to the group as a whole? And can Iassess the permissibility of my actions without assessing the groupaction of which they are part? Despite the prominence of collectivistthinking in war, discussion of war’s group morality is very muchin its infancy.