Trends in just war thinking during the US presidential debates 2000-12: genocide prevention and the renewed salience of last resort
Trends in just war thinking during the US presidential debates 2000-12: genocide prevention and the renewed salience of last resort
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0260210513000028
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Brunstetter, Daniel R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brunstetter, Daniel R.
在这篇文章中，我通过考察正义战争语言在2000年(布什-戈尔)、2004年(布什-克里)、2008年(麦凯恩-奥巴马)和2012年(奥巴马-罗姆尼)总统辩论中的使用，来探索正义战争传统在美国外交政策中的地位。虽然批评人士专注于使用和滥用正义的战争语言作为修辞上的光彩，以说服公众即将到来的冲突在道义上是合法的，同时服务于国家利益，但辩论展示了正义战争原则作为批判性接触语言的一部分。每个辩论周期都允许对现任总统的外交政策决定和正义战争哲学进行批判性反思。在我审查的这段时间里，关键的接触进程发现了过去的两个道德缺陷--未能采取行动制止卢旺达境内的种族灭绝和在伊拉克过早使用武力。这些明显的失败催生了跨越党派界限的趋同，在理解某些特殊战争原则的方式上：正义事业包括以某种方式进行干预以阻止种族灭绝的道德义务，以及最后手段原则的重新凸显。然而，在理解合法权威的方式上仍然存在明显的差异。
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.