Trends in just war thinking during the US presidential debates 2000–12
Genocide prevention and the renewed salience of last resort
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 11426003 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Daniel R Brunstetter (0000-0002-3443-2552, autor correspondente) |
| Ano | 2014 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Fascículo | 1 |
| Páginas | 77-99 |
| Data de publicação | 2014-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Review of International Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0260-2105 • E-ISSN: 1469-9044 |
| Editora | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0260210513000028 |
| OpenAlex | W2070029024 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 4 |
| Referências citadas | 28 |
In this article, I explore the place of the just war tradition in US foreign policy by examining the use of just war language in the presidential debates in 2000 (Bush-Gore), 2004 (Bush-Kerry), 2008 (McCain-Obama), and 2012 (Obama-Romney). While critics focus on the use and abuse of just war language as rhetorical gloss to persuade the public an upcoming conflict is morally legitimate while serving the national interest, the debates showcase just war principles as part of a language of critical engagement. Each debate cycle allowed for critical reflection on the foreign policy decisions and just war philosophy of the incumbent president. During the time period I examine, the process of critical engagement identified two moral shortcomings of the past – the failure to act to stop the genocide in Rwanda and the premature use of force in Iraq. These perceived failures catalysed convergence, across party lines, on the way some jus ad bellum principles were understood: Just cause as including the moral obligation to intervene in some way to stop genocide and the renewed salience of the principle of last resort. There remained, however, stark differences in the way legitimate authority was understood
Foreign policy · Genocide · Just war theory · Moral obligation · Political science · Politics · Presidential system · Rhetorical question · Salience (neuroscience · Sociology · Spanish Civil War · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Psychology · War, Ethics, and Justification
Just and Unjust Wars in Shakespeare
Just War in the 21st Century
The Slippery Slope to Preventive War
From Jus ad Bellum to Jus ad Vim
Notes on the Just War Theory
The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On
Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq
Just Cause for War
Just War, Not Prevention
The Implications of Drones on the Just War Tradition
Libya and the Responsibility to Protect
The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention in Libya
What's Wrong with Preventive War? The Moral and Legal Basis for the Preventive Use of Force
The Ethics of America's Afghan War
The responsibilities of victory
Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War
Talking about Just War
Just War against Barbarians
Shaping Public Opinion
The Appearance of War in Discourse
Shades of Green
Ethics of Intervention
Is the War on Terror Just
On the just war tradition in the twenty-first century
| Obras citantes distintas | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,33 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2014 - 2020 (7) |
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 4 |