Just war theory (Philosophy)

War is an absurd social practice. It ought to be abolished.
Indeed, as I show in the paper, a number of prominent
pacifists have argued in support of war abolition. War abolitionism
is connected to what I call “the whole war critique.”
The whole war critique has been explored by Robert
Holmes. But war abolition and the whole war critique have
been under-thematized
in the philosophical literature on
pacifism and just war theory. This paper seeks to remedy
that neglect. Holmes distinguishes between just war theory
and the broader critique of war as a whole, what he calls
“whole war.” Holmes concludes that “No actual, probable
or possible whole wars in the modern world are morally
permissible.” He argues that the entire social, cultural, economic,
and political practice of war is immoral. This claim
and the comprehensive critical project of war abolition is
much broader than the narrow set of judgments found in
just war theory. The just war theory does not ask about the
morality of war as a whole—as a social, cultural, economic,
and political practice. Nor does it focus on suggestions for
how we might prevent or abolish war. This paper will explain
and elucidate the whole war critique and how it contributes
to war abolitionist pacifism. It will also clarify how
this critical standpoint is an ideal theory that is nonetheless
not utopian.

Face à des menaces d’une ampleur inédite, telles que la bombe atomique ou la catastrophe climatique, notre capacité à comprendre et à agir est mise à rude épreuve : nous oscillons entre le sentiment d’une mobilisation urgente et la paralysie totale. Ces dangers transforment notre rapport au temps et à l’humanité, mettant en crise l’idée même d’un sujet collectif capable d’agir. Comment, dès lors, repenser la mesure et le fondement de l’action politique ? Inspiré par Günther Anders, Marcus Quent décrypte ici l’épuisement de la pensée critique face aux catastrophes modernes.

This paper explores the continuing arms race and conflict in the Middle East, focusing on the conflict between Israel, on the one hand and Hamas, Hezbollah.and ultimately Iran on the other The situation has been almost classically zero-sum from its inception around 1948 (arguably even before then, going back to the early 1900s) between Militant Islam on the one side and militant Zionism on the other.

A „háború” és a „politika” összefüggő fogalmak. Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) leghíresebb háborúmeghatározása is azt emeli ki, hogy a háború nem más, mint „a politikai érintkezés folytatása, annak más eszközökkel való megvalósítása”. A két fogalom univerzális összefüggését azonban a 20. század végén többen vitatták. Azt állították, hogy a háború csak annak a korszaknak a politikájával függött össze, amelyben Clausewitz is élt, illetve hogy maga Clausewitz sem gondolta ezt másként. Az alábbi tanulmány az ellenvetés részletes bemutatása után megvizsgálja a háború és a politika viszonyának történetét a  áború megjelenésétől kezdve a 20. század végéig. A vizsgálat alapján az a következtetés vonható le, hogy a háború mindig összefüggött a politikával, így annak meghatározásából nem is hagyható ki a politika fogalma.

The concepts of ‘war’ and ‘politics’ have been inextricably linked since the advent of the modern era. Even Carl von Clausewitz’s most famous definition of war emphasises that war is nothing other than ‘the continuation of political contact, its realisation by other means’. Nevertheless, the relationship between the two concepts was the subject of considerable debate at the end of the 20th century. The argument was put forth that the relationship between war and politics was unique to the era in which Clausewitz lived, and that Clausewitz himself did not perceive a different dynamic. After a comprehensive examination of this objection, the subsequent paper delves into the historical evolution of the nexus between war and politics, tracing its trajectory from the advent of warfare to the conclusion of the 20th century. It ultimately substantiates the proposition that war has consistently been intertwined with politics and that the concept of politics cannot be excluded from its definition.

After some historical remarks about former examples of Targeted killing the paper asks about the paradigm in which targeted killing could fit: punishment, police action, war of which the latter one seems to be the most promising. In this context, the problem of Immunity of non-combatants and who is to be counted as such becomes relevant.

This column argues that it no longer makes sense to speak about the 'moral equality of soldiers' or a soldier's 'licence to kill' in wartime. International law now imposes individual criminal responsibility on those involved in the crime of aggression. International human rights law considers lives lost as a result of aggression to be arbitrary deprivations of the right to life and therefore the responsibility of the aggressor state. The individual soldiers on the aggressor side can be considered liable for contributing to acts violating the UN Charter and human rights law. This can lead to concrete legal consequences, such as becoming ineligible for asylum or liability to being individually sanctioned. Once we consider that all the lives lost as a result of aggression are human rights violations, this changes how violations of the right to life are reported and calculated. All soldiers and civilians killed as a result of a state's aggression are victims of human rights violations, and the claims of their survivors are just starting to be heard.

After the Shoah and with the establishment of the State of Israel, the question of war and peace has become a real dilemma for Jews. The massacre perpetrated by the Palestinian terrorist organisation Hamas on 7 October 2023 has led to a collective (re)traumatisation of Jewish society in Israel and around the world. The long-term consequences are unpredictable, but are already being felt. It is against this background that Rabbi Walter Homolka describes the Jewish problem of war and peace in the State of Israel, from Jewish emancipation in Europe to the settlement of Eretz Israel and the founding of the state in 1948 to the present day: from the question of a just war to the challenge of achieving a just peace.

This document compiles the unredacted longer versions of five opinion essays published in Newsweek on Israel's total war on Gaza, the mass murder of Palestinian noncombatants, planned ethnic cleansing of Palestinians out of Gaza, and misuse of antisemitism charges in cynical ways to silence legitimate criticisms. The first essay (at the bottom of this stack) focuses on the central error in the argument made by the Likud's defenders that this is all just self-defense on Israel's part when in fact it is enormously disproportionate overkill motivated by lust for revenge and a desire to reduce Israeli casualties at any cost to innocent Palestinian life and property. The second essay lays out what it would require to bring about a two-state peace plan this late in history after Palestinian authorities refused final proposals to divide the territories in 2000 and 2008.

As wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue with little end in sight, the sense of urgency to determine how they should end is increasing, given how the wars could end. A just war aims to establish a better state of peace, but a better state of peace may not always be achievable, and even when it is achievable, it may not be good enough. When that is the case, actors must determine on what terms to settle, given what they think they can achieve based on relative capabilities and cost tolerances. The resulting “maximin” solution, a practical approach where actors maximize the minimum they can achieve, provides a range of solutions. But taking only these factors into account is not likely to produce an enduring or more perfect peace. To get to a “good enough” state of peace, justice concerns—in this case framed by the just-war tradition—play a role. By impacting what counts as costs and benefits and placing boundaries on what actors should accept independently of those costs and benefits, the just-war tradition can help actors construct more durable settlements. The experiences in Ukraine and Gaza further illustrate gaps in the just-war tradition, which this monograph also addresses.

Η σχέση του Ρουσσώ με τις διεθνείς σχέσεις, αν και γνωστή σε αυτούς που ασχολούνται με την πολιτική του σκέψη, σπάνια αποτέλεσε αντικείμενο πραγμάτευσης στην ελληνική βιβλιογραφία. Αποτελεί πεποίθηση του Rousseau ότι η οργάνωση της πολιτείας σε τοπικό επίπεδο δεν μπορεί να ολοκληρωθεί δίχως την ταυτόχρονη ενασχόληση με την οργάνωση της διεθνούς κοινωνίας κρατών, η οποία, αν παραμείνει αρρύθμιστη οδηγεί μάλιστα στην χειρότερη κατάσταση από όλες. Αν η ηθική ολοκλήρωση του ατόμου είναι το πρώτιστο καθήκον εντός μιας συγκεκριμένης πολιτείας, η επίτευξη της
ειρήνης σε διεθνές επίπεδο αποτελεί άρρηκτα συνδεδεμένο στόχο με αυτή, καθώς η πρώτη δεν μπορεί να επιτευχθεί δίχως τη δεύτερη. Μέσα από μια ανασυγκρότηση των επιχειρημάτων του για τον πόλεμο, την ειρήνη και την φύση των κρατών η παρούσα μελέτη θα υποστηρίξει ότι ο Rousseau δεν είναι ούτε πολιτικός ρεαλιστής, ούτε όμως
και ουτοπικός πασιφιστής.

In a 2021 contribution to Politics and Religion, Jesse Russell wrote that St. Thomas Aquinas “had a decidedly illiberal view of a government.” He says Aquinas “advocates a government in which the people are not given public liberty” and did not “prepare the way for the mixed monarchy of the English constitution.” But Aquinas places the rule of moral law above politics, endorses participatory government, prioritizes reciprocal duties rather than coerced conformity, favors a mixed regime with democratic representation, and sanctions resistance to tyrants. Each idea is an important component of modern understandings of freedom. Liberal democracy as a constitutional arrangement, and its various philosophical defenses, postdate Aquinas by centuries. It would be anachronistic to cast him as their partisan. But neither was he a proto-reactionary: his political philosophy is congenial to free, limited government that belongs to the people.

autore Marco Salvato 1. L'origine della politica e il problema della tecnica Schmitt è stato un pensatore ambiguo, comprensibile soltanto a partire da un milieu culturale tutto novecentesco improntato da numerosi ed eterogenei dibattiti filosofici, che spaziavano dal problema della tecnica a quello della secolarizzazione, dal formalismo giuridico a quello antiformale. L"ambiguità di Schmitt sta nelle sue tesi, in apparenza contraddittorie ma che rivelano, se interrogate, un problema di fondo, rintracciabile nell"epoca moderna e nella sua crisi storica: la crisi del razionalismo politico moderno, sviluppatosi nel periodo tra le due guerre mondiali. Dalla crisi moderna Schmitt risale o ridiscende a quella originaria che ha determinato e strutturato l"attuale e vede in questa il momento genetico, privo di fondamento, da cui nasce la politica presente. Quest"ultima è allora una ridiscesa nell"origine della crisi, nel conflitto, nel disordine, per affermare e creare ordine, ed impedire, rallentare (kat"echon), ciò che nell"origine è distruttivo e apportatore di violenza. L"assenza di un fondamento politico e sociale su cui giustificare gli ordinamenti storici concreti lascia così nella vita politica un vuoto, un abisso che apre all"energia propulsiva dell"origine e costringe il politico, se vuole impedire il ritorno della violenza ancestrale, a deliberare e ad agire su di essa, un azione definita dal giurista tedesco con il termine eccezione. La politica allora non può essere neutrale, non può affidarsi al discorso (al logos) o alla tecnica come vorrebbe il liberalismo, causa della deriva passiva del moderno per Schmitt, ma deve entrare nel Negativo, deve farsi polemica e orientarsi, anche perché la neutralità stessa è una presa di posizione, è un orientamento. Ed è proprio nell"assenza di ordine, primo volto di ogni crisi, che si origina la sua controparte: l"idea di diritto, capace di eccedere la violenza del conflitto e di realizzare, attraverso l"atto del politico, il recinto entro il quale l"energia dell"origine trova forma e confine. Schmitt ha così il merito di ricordarci, in un epoca imbevuta di facili pacifismi ed universalismi, il lato oscuro della politica, ovvero quanto in essa c"è di costitutivamente grave e serio, di tragico, di doveroso. 1 1 Carlo Galli, Genealogia della politica: Carl Schmitt e la crisi del pensiero politico moderno, Nuova ed., Bologna, Il mulino, 2010, p.XXVI L"epoca moderna, secondo Schmitt, ha trovato infatti la propria disfatta nell"inconsapevolezza della propria origine, nel tentativo di costruire un ordine razionale e scientifico senza tener conto del conflitto, del disordine che sta alla base della stessa modernità. L"oblio dell"origine conduce alla neutralizzazione della violenza, una neutralizzazione che però può avere anche un significato attivo, poiché dal disordine può nascere e svilupparsi un ordine nuovo, non pacificato, al cui interno permane, come fonte di energia, la potenza originaria del conflitto, quella forza a cui deve attingere il sovrano (il politico) per creare una forma politica, un intero all"interno del quale l"energia originaria rimane presente come forza creatrice e distruttrice. La prassi politica diventa allora puntuale, discreta, indeterminata perché non ha un punto fisso su cui poter fare affidamento ma un abisso sul quale può solo sollevarsi. Ed è a partire da questa consapevolezza che nasce la decisione di dare una forma al disordine, e di frenare (kat"echon) le dinamiche della modernità, quando queste minacciano la pace e la sicurezza. Così secondo Schmitt la legittimità dell"ordine non si fonda su un pretesa di razionalità ma sulla concretezza, sul nesso decisione-forma, su quella contingenza (eccezione) che ospita, dentro di sé, il nulla della modernità e la sua utopia, l"assenza di un topos fondativo da cui poter partire per costruire un ordine duraturo e imperituro. In questa ricerca di

After the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE and the failed insurrection in 138 CE, Jews determined that the still operative biblical covenant would be lived out in exile until the end-time. This exilic existence became the template of Jewish life and practice. With the advent of Zionism this exilic covenant was reconsidered and there was a strong impulse to end exile through political sovereignty in the land of Israel. Many traditional Jews rebelled against this attempt to end exile, Perhaps the most vociferous anti-Zionist voice in the postwar period was Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar (1887-1979). In his work Vayoel Moshe (1960) he waged a fierce battle against Zionism as heresy and false messianism. One tack was to view Zionism in the trajectory of the history of heresy from the first century military figure Bar Kokhba through the seventeenth century false messiah Shabbtai Zvi. This essay examines Teitelbaum's rendering of Bar Kokhba and Shabbtai Zvi as precursors to the heresy of Zionism that either miscalculates messianic time, or attempt to erase the messianic idea altogether.

In Just War Theory, the leading paradigm is a normative assessment of war among nation states. As an effect of that perspective, the duties and obligations of soldiers as well as the issues of culpability have received only very little attention. Recently, philosophers have questioned this restriction in order to discuss war ethics from a different angle. Research now focuses on the single soldier’s decisions on the battlefield and their moral assessment. This paper looks at the “criterion of liability” introduced by Jeff McMahan. It explains consequences of this new approach to war ethics, including the focus on reason-giving narratives. An interdisciplinary framework introduces recent historical findings on the single soldier’s “morality”. This paper argues that the shift of attention gives insight into the many facets of “morality” in the context of war.

Oggi, siamo qui a commemorare l'eccidio compiuto dai nazisti durante la Seconda Guerra Mondiale, il 24 marzo 1944, in cui 335 persone, tra cui partigiani, civili ebrei e italiani furono brutalmente uccisi. Oggi, le Fosse Ardeatine sono diventate simbolo di sacrificio, di resistenza e di lotta per la libertà: infatti, la vendetta compiuta quel giorno dai nazisti aveva il chiaro scopo di infondere paura e terrore, ma al contrario essa ha alimentato una maggiore forma di resistenza e un maggior desiderio di libertà. Oggi, questo tragico evento ci ricorda quanto la libertà sia un valore fondamentale della nostra vita, da difendere ogni giorno e in ogni luogo perché essa non sembra mai acquisita una volta per tutte. La memoria è l'arma più potente per difendere la libertà ed è nostro dovere preservarla e tramandarla, affinché i sacrifici di queste persone, di queste vittime innocenti che oggi ricordiamo, non siano vani. Oggi, tuttavia, mentre qui volgiamo con la nostra memoria uno sguardo al nostro recente passato, siamo chiamati a osservare e riflettere con la nostra mente e il nostro cuore sul nostro attuale presente: a distanza di 107 anni dalla fine della Prima Guerra Mondiale e di 80 anni dalla fine della Seconda, il mondo è nuovamente sull'orlo del baratro di un terzo conflitto bellico, anch'esso su scala mondiale. Le tensioni geopolitiche sempre più crescenti, esasperate da una guerra in atto nel cuore dell'Europa, spingono le due super potenze mondiali, gli Stati Uniti d'America da una parte e la Russia dall'altra, ad una nuova corsa agli armamenti, alla mobilitazione di truppe, nonché a continui scontri verbali: terreno di questo scontro nel quale queste due potenze misurano la loro forza è come sempre l'Europa. Una guerra tra superpotenze significa una guerra nucleare, una guerra cioè che, nel giro di un attimo, sarebbe in grado di distruggere intere nazioni e sterminare intere popolazioni, come la stessa umanità. Allora alcune domande sorgono spontanee: quante altre Fosse Ardeatine dovremmo ancora scavare? Quante altre vittime innocenti dovremo piangere prima di capire davvero che la guerra non ha senso? Le Fosse Ardeatine sono la prova di ciò che accade quando violenza e odio prendono il sopravvento, sono la testimonianza del rigetto di valori fondanti la nostra umanità, quali giustizia, libertà e pace.

The paper argues that the ethics of compromise, toleration, and war sometimes have to bracket who is right in the underlying conflict. It starts by highlighting a parallel between the ethics of compromise, toleration, and war: All three sometimes seem to apply symmetrically to those who are right and those who are wrong. It then discusses three attempts to make sense of this without bracketing who is right: One employs the idea of secondary oughts, a second appeals to conventions that are justifiably articulated in neutral terms, a third interprets the relevant oughts as subjective. The paper tries to show that none of them succeeds, and it concludes that we should embrace the view that the ethics of compromise, toleration, and war sometimes have to bracket who is right. The deeper rationale for this view, it suggests, is that sometimes all parties to a conflict must count as legitimate.

The Struggle for Recognition in Leaders and Nations: The struggle for recognition is a fundamental force in human history, shaping the evolution of societies, political ideologies, and global power structures. In `The Phenomenology of Spirit`, G.W.F. Hegel argues that self-consciousness emerges only through recognition by others, and this process is inherently conflictual. His master-slave dialectic illustrates how domination and submission arise as one consciousness seeks validation from another. This philosophical framework not only helps explain geopolitical power struggles—such as the tensions between the United States and China, or Russia’s defiance of the West—but also provides insight into the psychological motivations of individual leaders who crave recognition. The pessimism of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries stands in sharp contrast to the optimism of the previous one. Global conflicts, environmental crises, and the resurgence of authoritarianism continue to shape world affairs. At the core of these crises is the struggle for recognition, which manifests at both the national and individual levels.

Nella lingua siciliana si usa di frequente la parola "cuntintizza" per descrivere lo stato di felicità di una persona. Per un siciliano la felicità è un sentimento non reale, qualcosa che è al di fuori della vita vissuta come esperienza. L'allegrezza, invece, può benissimo essere quella dettata dall'ubriachezza, o di un evento festoso e i partecipanti sono allegri. Vedere un individuo allegro ci sembra uno scemo, quindi l'allegrezza va partecipata. Facciamo conto che a una persona accade un evento positivo, come una vincita a lotto, la nascita di un figlio, la ragazza le ha detto di si, quello non è allegro, non è felice, è contento, perché quello stato di allegria e felicità è contenuto in quel preciso evento. Ha il cuore contento. L'allegrezza la noti negli altri, la felicità è pensata, è uno stato mentale, solo la contentezza viene vissuta, sentita nel cuore, ricambiata con l'anima. "Vali cchiù la cuntintizza di lu cori chi tutti li tesori di lu munnu." 1 (Vale di più la contentezza del cuore che tutti i tesori del mondo.) A cosa potrà mai servire conoscere la filosofia ermetica? Serve a concepire quello stato di contentezza che nasce da qualche parte del cuore seminata da una immagine, uno sguardo, una parola, un sentimento occulto che si rivela. Scoprire quell'oro alchemico nato dalla continua purificazione di se stessi fino ad arrivare alla contentezza che sorge dal cuore. "C come Cuore-Pagine per lenire il mal d'amore" di Gabriele La Porta-Gruppo editoriale il Saggiatore S.p.A.-Nelle edizioni il Saggiatore Il ritorno della grande madre-Milano 2003. Questo è il terzo volume pubblicato dall'Autore nelle Edizioni Pratiche: A come Anima-A come Amore. L'ho comprato a Bologna in un bel negozio di libri (nuovi ed usati) LIBRACCIO, pieno di gente di ogni età che guarda, consulta compra, mi si è aperto il cuore di speranza vedere tutta quella gente interessata ai libri,

Este artículo aborda el proceso seguido en el siglo xvi por la Escuela de Salamanca (Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto y Bartolomé de Las Casas) para interpretar, con base en la escolástica tomista, el significado de los pecados de la carne atribuidos a los indios americanos y concluir que su pasado formaba parte de la historia universal revelada por Dios y que dichos pecados eran señales de cristiandad.

The Just War Theory which is deeply rooted in Christian ethics and natural law, has been a guiding
framework for determining the morality of war for centuries for many years. This paper looks at how
Thomas Aquinas contributed to this theory. It explains his three main rules for a just war namely:
firstly, ‘legitimate authority’ which means only a proper government or ruler can declare war.
Secondly, ‘just cause’ which says that there must be a good and fair reason for fighting, such as
protecting people from harm. Thirdly, ‘right intention’ which means that the goal of war should be to
bring peace, not to gain power or wealth. The paper also talks about how war should be fought fairly
by discussing two important rules. Firstly, ‘proportionality’ which says that the harm caused by war
should not be worse than the problem it tries to fix. Secondly, ‘discrimination’ which says that war
should target only enemy soldiers, not innocent people.
To understand these ideas better, the paper looks at how Just War Theory started in ancient Greece and
changed over time, especially in the Middle Ages when Aquinas developed his teachings.
Additionally, the paper explores how Aquinas’ Just War principles apply to modern conflicts. It
examines how countries use these ideas in international law and how new technology, like drones and
cyber warfare, creates new ethical problems. The discussion also includes Christian views on war,
peace, and justice, showing how different beliefs shape responses to war.
Even though Just War Theory is still useful, it has challenges in dealing with today’s complex wars.
By combining Aquinas’ ideas with modern diplomatic efforts and humanitarian work, this paper
highlights how Just War Theory can still help guide ethical decisions about war and peace in today’s
world.

This article demonstrates that ritual plays an ambivalent role in the interaction betweenreligion and violence. Ritual triggers and gives meaning to violence, or it enforces peace andcoexistence. The first part of the article defines the ambivalence of ritual in the context ofviolence. The second part surveys standard rituals of peace and violence from Hinduism,Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The third part focuses on the ambivalent natureof Orthodox Christian rituals.

Andre Brigot, professeur certifieMaurice Ronai, assistant de l’enseignement superieurLaurent Henninger, charge de mission au Centre d’etudes d’histoire de la defense Le seminaire a poursuivi l’etude des relations entre transformations techniques et affaires militaires. Les seances alternent des elements techniques et des contextes historiques, mais cette annee les considerations sur les techniques contemporaines ont ete particulierement developpees. Apres avoir rappele dans une seance introdu...

Andre Brigot, professeur certifieLaurent Henninger, charge d’etudes au Centre d’histoire militaire/IRSEM Transformations et mutations militaires Conformement a la methode adoptee dans les seminaires precedents, les seances ont alterne les exemples historiques de transformations techniques et sociales dans les questions militaires et les considerations contemporaines. Cette annee, deux periodes historiques ont ete etudiees : les transformations militaires en Asie, plus specifiquement en Chine ...

La conflictualité internationale contemporaine, qui s'inscrit dans des perspectives d'unicité, de dualité et de complexité, constitue un défi pour la diplomatie, qui, dans une logique synoptique, obéit aussi à une mutation duale. Cette situation de conflictualité violente duale, construite autour du classicisme, de l'hybridation de la guerre et de sa complexification, entraîne donc le développement d'une diplomatie duale structurée autour de l'interétatisme classique, des transactions avec les acteurs non étatiques et du développement de la diplomatie militaro-sécuritaire comme axes de gestion de ces situations violentes. Cette solution obère à une logique de recherche d'efficacité fondée sur la combinaison rationnelle des solutions.

This study analyzes the theory of just war in Thomas Aquinas in relation to the theme of peace and the virtue of charity. It starts with the contributions previously made by St. Augustine on this very important topic for the Western philosophical and legal tradition. The moral implications contained in the perspective of the medieval theologian are considered, as they will be decisive for the evaluation of the human fact of war and the determination of its “just” or “unjust” character. At the same time, it aims to show the realism of the Thomistic position —inheritor of St. Augustine himself— with respect to two extreme theoretical-practical stances: pacifism and militarism.

En el presente estudio se analiza la teoría de la guerra justa en Santo Tomás de Aquino en relación con el tema de la paz y la virtud de la caridad. Se parte de las aportaciones que previamente realizó San Agustín sobre este tópico tan importante para la tradición filosófica y jurídica de occidente. Se toman en consideración las implicaciones morales que se encuentran contenidas en la perspectiva del teólogo medieval, en cuanto que ellas serán determinantes para la valoración del hecho humano de la guerra y la determinación de su carácter “justo” o “injusto”. Al mismo tiempo, se pretende mostrar el realismo de la posición tomasiana, —heredera del mismo San Agustín— respecto a dos posturas teórico prácticas extremas, que son pacifismo y belicismo.

In the military education field of Angola, it has been found that theoretical studies on the curriculum and its design for the training of professionals are very scarce and incipient. In correspondence with the above, the objective of this article is to present the main arguments that, in the author's opinion, support the role played by the social and educational context in curriculum design for the training of Navy officers in Angola, as well as the The need to ensure that both teachers and teachers are involved in the process of developing the curriculum, from an active participation. The theoretical-methodological conception of curriculum design for the training of naval specialists of the higher level of the Angolan Navy, It is defined as a set of starting ideas, concepts and their representation, which allow explaining the curricular decision-making process, together with an orienting methodological derivation for practice, in accordance with the demands of the Angolan military educational context. For its preparation, different methods were applied such as document analysis, modeling and systematization, and methodological meetings and methodological workshops were held where the participants contributed ideas that enriched the proposal. This theoretical and methodological conception for the design of the curriculum considers the context as the process of adapting the components of the curriculum to the national reality of Angola and local specificities and participation as the element that implies the active collaboration of the teaching leaders and professors.

This article compares Chinese political philosophy and Islamic political thought, examining their historical roots, key principles, and contemporary relevance. Chinese political philosophy, primarily shaped by Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism, emphasizes moral governance, social harmony, and the cultivation of virtue among rulers. In contrast, Islamic political thought, deeply rooted in the Quran, Hadith, and Sharia, focuses on justice, divine law, and the moral responsibility of rulers to ensure the well-being of the ummah (community). Despite their distinct cultural and historical origins, both traditions share concerns regarding the moral nature of leadership, the balance of authority and freedom, and the importance of justice in governance. It highlights the underexplored potential of Confucianism in shaping China's current political model and the challenges of integrating Sharia into contemporary state systems in the Muslim world. Additionally, it discusses how these philosophical traditions could contribute to global governance, offering alternative frameworks that challenge the dominance of Western liberal democratic ideals. The article aims to foster a deeper understanding of their relevance in the modern political landscape by investigating the similarities and differences between these two intellectual traditions.

This article compares Chinese political philosophy and Islamic political thought, examining their historical roots, key principles, and contemporary relevance. Chinese political philosophy, primarily shaped by Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism, emphasizes moral governance, social harmony, and the cultivation of virtue among rulers. In contrast, Islamic political thought, deeply rooted in the Quran, Hadith, and Sharia, focuses on justice, divine law, and the moral responsibility of rulers to ensure the well-being of the ummah (community). Despite their distinct cultural and historical origins, both traditions share concerns regarding the moral nature of leadership, the balance of authority and freedom, and the importance of justice in governance. It highlights the underexplored potential of Confucianism in shaping China's current political model and the challenges of integrating Sharia into contemporary state systems in the Muslim world. Additionally, it discusses how these philosophical traditions could contribute to global governance, offering alternative frameworks that challenge the dominance of Western liberal democratic ideals. The article aims to foster a deeper understanding of their relevance in the modern political landscape by investigating the similarities and differences between these two intellectual traditions.

Terrorist attacks against the United States and some European states, and the war against terrorism characterised the end of the 20 th century from the perspective of international relations. In harmony with this, military theoretical and ethical research aimed at terrorism, insurgency war in general and counterterrorism in this period. Some years later, however, at the beginning of the 21 st century, some further questions joined these problems, like the theoretical and ethical issues of hybrid war. This essay deals with the theoretical and philosophical features of hybrid war in order to develop an ethical theory for it.

In his massive 2019 work on the history of the faith-reason discourse in the West, Habermas replies to Kant's question of rational hope with the prospect of an eventual intercultural agreement on cosmopolitan principles of justice. To warrant such hope he points to the growth of democratic institutions and human rights across the globe. Habermas's answer thus relies on political structures that foster transformative social movements-but not on modern moral attitudes, which he regards as too individualistic to generate collective action. I argue that Habermas, following Kant, relies on flawed assumptions about social movements. As a result, his structural approach provides an incomplete basis for hope. In the spirit of ongoing dialogue between religion and secular thought, I translate Aquinas's treatment of fraternal correction into an ethics of moral leadership that can fill the gaps in Habermas's project.

As we think of soldiers and Israel -both Biblical and contemporary -going to war, we are invited to reflect on the very nature of war making. Who is it that is fighting? The question might seem trivial. After all, it is the army, human soldiers, who are going to war. This is, indeed the framework within which the prayer for the soldiers of the IDF is recited. Yet, the biblical prooftext that is offered at the conclusion of the prayer invites us to reconsider what might seem obvious at first sight. "For the Lord your God goes with you, to fight on your behalf with your enemies, in order to save you" (Deut. 20:4). The prayer itself speaks of God protecting and saving our soldiers and cause our enemies who rise against us to be struck down before them. The prayer, then, seems to suggest that it is the soldiers who are doing the fighting and that God, in turn, helps them by bringing about the requested outcome. But something more is said in the prooftext. It is not simply that God

The moral response to evil is, perhaps paradoxically, one of the greatest of ethical dilemmas. On the one hand, morality seeks to define good and evil; on the other hand, fighting evil demands actions that morality would otherwise deem evil. So, while killing is evil, killing a killer is good. The moral paradox of killing is magnified exponentially when it comes to war. To address this issue, Just War Theory comes to provide a moral framework for war. But its efficacy largely assumes that the warring parties are moral, law-abiding peoples. What are the rules of engagement for fighting people who flout every rule in the book? It is my thesis that the category of war that describes fighting "Amalek"-the biblical paradigm of radical evil-provides the response. My suggestion is not that such a category of war departs from Just War Theory but actually conforms to it.

This paper aims to offer a fresh perspective on the clay mentioned in Daniel 2. Rather than presenting authoritative conclusions, it serves as an invitation to explore Scripture independently, encouraging readers to seek wisdom directly from God, who is the ultimate source of understanding. While the insights of godly leaders are valuable and should inform our research, the goal here is to highlight the opportunities for deeper discovery that arise when we engage with the biblical text ourselves. By doing so, we can uncover the rich and boundless insights that Scripture has to offer. This specific paper is a result of seeking to understand if there is a reason why the different types of the quality of the clay in Daniel 2 exists such as: potter's clay, clay and miry clay. When reading Daniel 2 with a historicist framework it is common understanding that the prophecy is linear typically starting at the time of the prophet then successively describing the future events in a successive order. Example: head of gold (Babylon), arms and chest of silver (Medo Persia), thighs of brass (Greece), legs of iron (Rome), feet of iron and clay (Papal Rome)

This paper aims to address a key topic of speculation within political philosophy, namely the Just War Theory. The Just War Theory works to ethically restrain wars based on principles listed out in jus ad bellum (reasons to go to war) and jus in bello (conduct during war). As such, the theory dominated by the debate between the ‘traditionalists’ and ‘revisionists’ who are concerned about the integration of jus post bellum as the third branch of just war theory and feel it is better suited to the domain of international politics and security. This paper explores this lacunae over the neglect of jus post bellum (post war justice) within the just war discourse. By identifying the limitations of a minimalist jus post bellum and this misrepresentation of peace with security, this paper defends a maximalist account of jus post bellum and also situates post war justice as a necessary third branch of the Just War Theory. The challenges to taking such an extensive stance on post war justice ...

The Jewish tradition — technically speaking, the rabbinic tradition that establishes what is called “Judaism” and which is known in emic terms as “the Oral Tradition” — might be described as a courageous and even audacious attempt of the ancient rabbis to read and implement the Bible in a manner consistent with their own ethical ideals. This, even when doing so required them to assert readings that clearly contradicted the plain sense of Scripture. In this lecture, I explore the ways in which rabbinic morality and commitment to the sanctity of human life led to the neutralization of biblically-mandated violence.

This article examines Augustine’s just war reflections and highlights its significance to contemporary discussions on war, violence, peace, and justice. To demonstrate this, the article first analyzes some of Augustine’s insights on war, justice, and peace, and how some classical influences significantly contributed to his reflection on these subjects. Second, by examining James Turner Johnson’s reception, interpretation, and expansion of the just war theory (JWT), especially in light of contemporary discussions, the article shows how this ancient thought remains ever new. While indicating the attendant ambiguity that surrounds the JWT, the article argues that the JWT still holds much relevance, especially when it is critically re-engaged in the light of the present day debate on nonviolence and just peace.