Stipe Buzar

The jus ad bellum requirement of the probability of success can be perceived as an unjust requirement which prohibits the weaker side of a potential or actual military conflict from committing itself to organized violence, even to defend and protect its own survival. This view of the probability of success as an unjust requirement, however, need only be held if: (1) the goal of the weaker state is survival itself. In cases when (1) is true, the requirement should be considered void. On the other hand, if: (2) survival is not considered an overriding factor, then the requirement stands. This paper explores the latter position using the example of the famous Melian Dialogue from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, and applies it to the question of Ukraine’s right to war and their government’s possible moral obligation to negotiate in their current defensive war against Russia. ---------------------------------------- Received: 26/04/2024. Reviewed: 12/06/2024. Accepted: 5/11/2024.

Looking back at the "War on Terror" and its policies, actions, and the violence that followed, this book analyzes the resulting changes in international power structures and the relationship between citizens and their representatives. It defines our shortcomings in opposing this type of violence by demonstrating how the notion of legitimate violence has been broadened. The impact of the "War on Terror" on the public view of Liberalism is explored, as well as its effects on the role of state authorities in our lives. Thus, this book names the lessons we ought to learn from the actions taken against terrorist organizations.

The paper explores the relationship between the Principle of Double Effect and Just War Theory, with emphasis on their relationship in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Both PDE and JWT are of Medieval origin, and are classical exponents of medieval moral philosophy. The main connection between them is, however, that they can both be viewed as theories about permissible violence and harm, that is theories about when it is morally permissible to harm and possibly kill another human being. The final point of the paper is that PDE is an important element within JWT, or rather that when just war theorists manage to justify a certain types of violence they do so by extensive use of PDE. This only applies to one part of JWT, jus in bello, which concerns the actual morality of fighting, not the right to war itself. If these assumptions can be reasonably fleshed out, and if it is possible to show that PDE is of crucial importance to certain elements of jus in bello, such as methods for justifying civilian casualties, that would entail that our own moral examinations of warfare differ precisely because we either accept or don’t accept PDE as a viable and reasonable principle in normative ethics.