This study began with a curiosity why the aftermath of Iraq War took 8 years and 9 months before cleaned up to the end though the actual war period was from March 20 to April 14, 2003. It tries to find the reasons of too lingered time, tremendous economic cost and huge causality in from the angle of...
This study began with a curiosity why the aftermath of Iraq War took 8 years and 9 months before cleaned up to the end though the actual war period was from March 20 to April 14, 2003. It tries to find the reasons of too lingered time, tremendous economic cost and huge causality in from the angle of ‘legitimacy’ which could be found in the war. In this study, Iraq war is approached from two aspects. One is to analyze the legitimacy of Iraq war, focusing on Just War Theory. After the analysis based on Just War Theory, another is, as the theory for the termination of a war USA was responsible for, an extensive discussion on the leadership of a certain country that has power of taking an initiative inside multilateralism. For the latter, this study adds to the issue the logic of modern Just War Theory under international law, which is executed with the international organizations of more reinforced structure and by requirements. In addition, this study covers the ethical responsibility on UN members for Iraq war and peaceful settlement after the end of the war to supplement the final mechanism of the existing Just War Theory. The insufficiency of the studies on the legitimacy of the terminating of the war enables to bring forth the counter-argument that Just War Theory of Michael Walzer avoids being involved in the politics for post-war peace settlement. Therefore, this study suggest a development of the theory into the modern Just War Theory under international law, aiming to extend the academic research into the legitimacy of the end of the war and provide countermeasures against the dispute. By doing so, this study will help Just War Theory of Michael Walzer escape from the criticism that the theory is missed as a supporting logic for the wars by powerful countries. On the contrary, this study will assert that the modern Just War Theory under international law can contribute to establishing long-termed and macro policies for post-war peace by deterring unjust war, defining the declaration of war, and setting up ethical criteria at least in carrying war. Free from two narrow viewpoints that UN and USA conflict each other as power entities in real term or idealistically USA accepts the demands of UN unconditionally, on the other hand, the author will frame the logic in a way that two entities really respect mutual existence and recognize the importance of their individual influence on the world peace, to demonstrate the validity of the legitimacy after the end of the war. In reality, USA is playing a role of the global police equipped with almighty military force and economic wealth. Other countries also tend to partially acknowledge such role of is humanitarian intervention and legitimacy in military disputes in which any country can join as solver or helper. In this web of powers, USA needs legitimacy that can be bestowed by UN. This study make an attempt to tell that UN mechanism, based on the enforcement under international laws, tries to harmonize the sovereignty of individual nation with the world order. In a mechanism of balanced power, action against invasion requires voluntary and experiential decision. Unlike such voluntary approaches, however, the way to cope with hostility through UN has a permanent effect in deterring it. The issues of international peace and security should be treated by temporary and experiential measures, but by determinant solution. The acquisition of “legitimacy” from UN will be a political objective that every country must achieve before international action or even after it is considered already established. It doesn’t seem possible that USA will be able to play the role of world police as now for in future and solve all kinds of disputes and humanitarian issues. No matter how USA is an almighty power, it can’t help but be restrained. The restrain will come from inside the county. If countries in the world want to achieve the objectives to justify their own preferences and values, they have to grant ‘the power of enforcement’ to an international organization. Otherwise, the organization is and exists in name only.
This study began with a curiosity why the aftermath of Iraq War took 8 years and 9 months before cleaned up to the end though the actual war period was from March 20 to April 14, 2003. It tries to find the reasons of too lingered time, tremendous economic cost and huge causality in from the angle of ‘legitimacy’ which could be found in the war. In this study, Iraq war is approached from two aspects. One is to analyze the legitimacy of Iraq war, focusing on Just War Theory. After the analysis based on Just War Theory, another is, as the theory for the termination of a war USA was responsible for, an extensive discussion on the leadership of a certain country that has power of taking an initiative inside multilateralism. For the latter, this study adds to the issue the logic of modern Just War Theory under international law, which is executed with the international organizations of more reinforced structure and by requirements. In addition, this study covers the ethical responsibility on UN members for Iraq war and peaceful settlement after the end of the war to supplement the final mechanism of the existing Just War Theory. The insufficiency of the studies on the legitimacy of the terminating of the war enables to bring forth the counter-argument that Just War Theory of Michael Walzer avoids being involved in the politics for post-war peace settlement. Therefore, this study suggest a development of the theory into the modern Just War Theory under international law, aiming to extend the academic research into the legitimacy of the end of the war and provide countermeasures against the dispute. By doing so, this study will help Just War Theory of Michael Walzer escape from the criticism that the theory is missed as a supporting logic for the wars by powerful countries. On the contrary, this study will assert that the modern Just War Theory under international law can contribute to establishing long-termed and macro policies for post-war peace by deterring unjust war, defining the declaration of war, and setting up ethical criteria at least in carrying war. Free from two narrow viewpoints that UN and USA conflict each other as power entities in real term or idealistically USA accepts the demands of UN unconditionally, on the other hand, the author will frame the logic in a way that two entities really respect mutual existence and recognize the importance of their individual influence on the world peace, to demonstrate the validity of the legitimacy after the end of the war. In reality, USA is playing a role of the global police equipped with almighty military force and economic wealth. Other countries also tend to partially acknowledge such role of is humanitarian intervention and legitimacy in military disputes in which any country can join as solver or helper. In this web of powers, USA needs legitimacy that can be bestowed by UN. This study make an attempt to tell that UN mechanism, based on the enforcement under international laws, tries to harmonize the sovereignty of individual nation with the world order. In a mechanism of balanced power, action against invasion requires voluntary and experiential decision. Unlike such voluntary approaches, however, the way to cope with hostility through UN has a permanent effect in deterring it. The issues of international peace and security should be treated by temporary and experiential measures, but by determinant solution. The acquisition of “legitimacy” from UN will be a political objective that every country must achieve before international action or even after it is considered already established. It doesn’t seem possible that USA will be able to play the role of world police as now for in future and solve all kinds of disputes and humanitarian issues. No matter how USA is an almighty power, it can’t help but be restrained. The restrain will come from inside the county. If countries in the world want to achieve the objectives to justify their own preferences and values, they have to grant ‘the power of enforcement’ to an international organization. Otherwise, the organization is and exists in name only.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.