JUS POST BELLUM AND ITS APPLICATION ON UNITED KINGDOM PARTICIPATION IN THE 2003 IRAQ WAR
| Autoři | |
|---|---|
| Rok publikování | 2016 |
| Druh | Článek ve sborníku |
| Konference | Conference: International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts |
| Fakulta / Pracoviště MU | |
| Citace | |
| Obor | Politologie a politické vědy |
| Klíčová slova | Iraq; war; jus post bellum |
| Přiložené soubory | |
| Popis | The just war tradition is a set of criteria stemming from moral philosophy. It is a normative approach which aims to determine the rules of proper conduct. Although the idea of just war has a long tradition, the just conclusion of war has received little attention. The jus post bellum principles have developed only over the last three decades. The paper uses Brian Orend’s set of criteria, as he has dealt with the issue of jus post bellum most profoundly and systematically. Out of the principles of the just termination of war laid out by Orend, the UK did not meet the rehabilitation criterion, as it did not have a sound plan for the situation in post-war Iraq, and thus it made some mistakes that could have been avoided. Furthermore, it did not meet the principle of proportionality and publicity either. Based on available resources, it cannot be ruled out that the disarmament and respecting the armament sanctions imposed on Iraq by the SC UN could have been accomplished without the regime change. Hence, on the whole, the UK did not act in compliance with all of the principles of jus post bellum in Iraq. |