School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemThe Jus Ad Bellum, legitimacy, and humanitarian intervention( 2010)This thesis holds that war is at times, and under certain conditions, necessary. In order to engage in just war, it is necessary for a state to meet the Just War Theory’s criteria in the jus ad bellum. In order for a legitimate war to be waged, according to the jus ad bellum criteria, the state waging war must be a legitimate state. The tenet of the jus ad bellum that states a war must be waged by a legitimate authority assumes the state itself is legitimate. Because the definition of legitimacy is a much disputed one, this thesis suggests that there ought to exist more appropriate criteria for the legitimate state than has been given in the contemporary literature. I argue, after examining the properties of statehood that exist when stripped from a rogue or a failed label, that those properties create criteria more appropriate defining the legitimate state. I argue, then, that it is the responsibility of legitimate states to intervene in areas of crises when all criteria of the jus ad bellum are met. The decision to engage in just intervention is made by the legitimate authority of the state, and as such gives that authority a particular kind of power. The power of the legitimate authority is accompanied by specific duties required by the principles of justice. The consequences the legitimate authority faces for failing to adhere to those duties are severe. The legitimate authority that refuses to intervene when it is needed fails to adhere to those duties, adversely affects the reputation of the entire state in the eyes of the international community, and potentially damages the legitimate status of the state. As such, I conclude that it is unjust for a state to choose not to intervene in a place where there is great harm and it is the case that the jus ad bellum criteria of Just War Theory are met.