Read the article on Military Ethics in Cavnas.  Listen to audio lecture 5.4 Military Ethics  and follow along with the Powerpoint slides in Files/Resources/Powerpoint slides (Mod 5.4 Military Ethics.pptx).

Question: Pick one of the clauses in Just War Theory and give an new description of something that would be a violation of that clause.  Be sure to explain why it is a violating of the clause you’ve chosen.

You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.

Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.

Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.

The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument. Military Ethics Assignment

ADDITIONAL INORMATION 

Just War Theory

Introduction

The just war theory is a moral framework that attempts to regulate the use of force by governing when and how a commander may go to war. It is also known as the “law of war” or “principles of international law.” The theory is based on five principles, which are: non-combatant immunity, just cause, right intention, probability of success and last resort. These principles apply not only during time of actual combat but also in peacetime where wars have been fought for centuries in order to determine if and when an act may be considered lawful under this moral code.

Non-combatant immunity

Non-combatants cannot be attacked. Their only means of self-defense is to flee the battlefield, which would mean the war is over. Non-combatants may not be able to fight back, but they can still defend themselves from being harmed by combatants and their weapons. If there are no non-combatants at all in an area where a warring tribe is engaged in combat (such as between two tribes), then no one should be allowed to attack anyone else because everyone’s lives will be endangered by this type of behavior!

Just cause

Just cause is the supreme law of war, and it must be strictly observed by both parties to a conflict. The purpose of war must be to restore peace and justice.

Just cause can only exist when there is no other way to solve a conflict or achieve your goal without resorting to violence. If you have exhausted all peaceful methods available before going on the offensive, then you should consider whether it would be better for everyone involved if you refrained from attacking until another possible solution could be found.

Right intention

The second criterion for a just war is that it must be motivated by the intention of restoring peace and justice. This means that there must be an intention to improve the situation, not only to stop conflict.

In order for this criterion to be met, both sides must have had good intentions when they started their fight:

• The right intention is that these two parties would like for their countries or regions/states or regions in general (whether it’s one person or many)

• They want peace in their area/area(s). They don’t want war; they don’t want any more bloodshed from anything happening around them at all times . . . no matter what happens between groups within these areas during times when tensions rise up slightly higher than usual due primarily because there’s been some sort of disagreement among citizens over political issues such as taxes etcetera . . .

Probability of success

The probability of success is the chance that you can actually achieve what you want. If this is low, it means that there is more risk involved in the war than if it were easier to win. For example, imagine two countries have a dispute over land ownership rights. If one country owns all of the land, but another country wants to buy some small pieces of land nearby so they can grow food without interfering with their neighbors’ crops (which would be considered an act of aggression), then maybe using force would be justified because even though it may not work out exactly as planned due to unforeseen circumstances or just plain bad luck—it’s still worth trying! But if both sides knew full well how difficult such an expedition would be and were willing take into account all possible outcomes before committing themselves…then perhaps this might not qualify as a just cause because there are too many unknowns associated with such actionable plans being put forward by governments…

Last resort

The last resort is the only way to use force that’s consistent with just war theory. It must be used as a last resort, meaning you have exhausted all other options and cannot continue to live in peace with your enemy. This means you can’t use force just because they have done something wrong; instead, it must be required by necessity or self-defense—or both. In addition to this requirement, the last resort must not be used to punish or humiliate the enemy but rather only when their actions pose an imminent threat of harm (e.g., kill or capture).

Proportionality

Proportionality

The use of force must be proportional to the threat. The use of force must also be proportional to the evil that is being prevented. For example, if a terrorist organization threatens to kill millions of people in the United States and we respond with a nuclear attack on their country, this would not be proportionate because there are other ways we could have responded such as sending military aid or diplomacy. However, if a small group of terrorists were threatening to contaminate our food supply with anthrax spores by using stolen anthrax spores from an American lab resultiing in thousands dead each week until every member dies from contamination (and this does not include those who die from exposure over time), then it would be appropriate for us to take extreme measures since our lives are at stake!

Conclusion

The just war theory is a framework for determining when it’s appropriate to go to war. It can help us answer some of the most challenging ethical questions of our time, like whether or not war is justified in situations where there are no clear victims or villains. We hope that this explanation has helped you better understand what just war theory looks like and why it’s so important.