Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.
Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Ograniczanie wyników
Czasopisma help
Lata help
Autorzy help
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 29

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 2 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych:  just war
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 2 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
In the first part of their article, the Authors outline the relations between the meaning of realism, pacifism, and the notion of just war. They claim that the premises of realism and pacifism are included in the notion of just war and analyze the content of the latter as stated by the ancient as well as medieval Christian tradition. It includes the insights of Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, and others. The notion of just war that all these thinkers supported had a universal dimension and combined the justified reasons for war, the way it should be conducted and its true end which was the lasting and just peace. The Authors indicate that in the Middle Ages this notion was radically challenged by the idea of holy war. The thinkers who promoted it (Guibert of Nogent, Robert the Monk, Bernard of Clairvaux) rejected the universal normative force of the notion of just war. In fact, they applied it exclusively to the relations among Christian nations. Those who were not Christians, that is, Muslims as well as pagans, were to be considered not the subjects of war efforts but rather their objects. As such, they were to be defeated and destroyed, as the Muslims confronted by the crusaders or to be converted to Christianity by force as the Northern and Eastern European pagans invaded by the Teutonic Order.
EN
Being sent to the world Christianity had to determine its moral assessment of different worldly realities, war and peace among them. While the Western tradition rather early developed a just war doctrine, the East took a different path. War has constantly been perceived as evil though in some circumstances necessary and hence justifiable (but strictly speaking neither “just” nor “good”). Both the Greek Fathers and later Eastern authors and Church figures, like Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, would develop their understanding of warfare as “irrational” and an obstacle on every Christian’s path to theosis. The Russian Orthodox Bishops’ The Basis of the Social Concept is a rare example of a more elaborated theory of the justification of warfare.
PL
Inaczej niż na Zachodzie, chrześcijański Wschód o wiele ostrożniej formułował teorię wojny sprawiedliwej (ius ad bellum). Widział wojnę zawsze jako zło, jakkolwiek w pewnych okolicznościach uznawał jej konieczność. W centrum prawosławnej teologii i liturgii jest zawsze pokój jako wyjątkowy i zobowiązujący dar Boży. Angażowanie się w wojnę, nawet jeśli konieczne, staje się przeszkodą na drodze od theosis, która ma być celem dla każdego chrześcijanina. Uznając irracjonalność wojny i niemożliwość jej pogodzenia z wolą Bożą, teologia prawosławna odnotowała jednak próby określenia warunków jej podjęcia, jak i sposobów ograniczenia jej złych skutków (ius in bello). Wielokrotnie przeciwko niegodziwości wojny wypowiadał się Patriarcha Konstantynopola Bartłomiej, a względnie pełne opracowanie etycznych aspektów wojny dali prawosławni biskupi rosyjscy w 2000 r.
EN
The end of the Cold War, and especially the 9/11 events brought back as a  core subject for debates the Just War Theory as an answer for the new contemporary realities represented by aggressions, intervention, self‑defense, war prisoners, terrorists, war crimes, etc.JWT has always been understood not as an abstract moral theory but more as a  practical guide for military and political leaders for their armed implication decisions. If JWT is adequate or not to the current conditions, it is closely connected to its ability to meet this practical function. The present article will analyze the degree to which the recent changes of the role of military violence affected JWT.
PL
Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polskim
EN
During the Second World War The Military Order of the Cross and the Sword combined Catholic moral principles with patriotism in the active struggle for independence. The role of enlarged strategically Poland was peaceful integration of Central Europe. They planned to follow rules of peaceful Catholic international cooperation. Anti-Christian systems of Germany and the USSR and materialistic western countries were not acceptable.
5
Content available remote Tradycja sprawiedliwej wojny w kontekście antropologii filozoficznej
60%
EN
The aim of the article is to present underestimated so far possibilities of political theories’ interpretation on the example of recognising in them influences of the state notion antropomorphisation. The essential thesis of the article claims that the just war concepts clearly reflect how much human philosophy translates into the notion of law and the idea and function of the state. It is not about finding accidental coincidences between individual ethics and law and ethos of the state but to show a deep connection between the human nature notion and the vision of the ideal state, which is the reference point for practice. Thus the way of perceiving the distance between sovereign states, the kind of international relations understood as politically correct and justified or impossible, irreconcilable with the function of the state and its organisations’ aim is a valuable source of knowledge about how the human condition is understood in the light of a particular outlook.
EN
As the well-known proverb goes, war is a continuation of politics by other means. Every realistic political perspective acknowledges the possibility of war as the last resort in solving agonal conflicts. As such, politics is to war as the threat of force is to its actual use.With skepticism, my paper explores the presupposition that war can be a lawful, legitimate instrument of politics. Specifically, I consider two opposing “just war” paradigms- the realistic and moralistic.
PL
Znane jest powiedzenie, że wojna jest kontynuacją polityki za pomocą innych środków. Oznacza to, że każda realistyczna polityka bierze pod uwagę możliwość wojny  jako ostateczny środek  rozstrzygania agonalnego  sporu. Polityka ma się zatem  do wojny tak,  jak zagrożenie użycia siły  do  jej realnego zastosowania. W swoim referacie sceptycznie  rozważę  możliwość  przekształcenia wojny w urządzenie prawne. Przedstawię dwa przeciwstawne kanony rozważania wojny sprawiedliwej: realistyczny i moralistyczny.
EN
A review study based on the content of the works of J. Velek, Kapitoly z teorie spravedlivé války (Chapters in the Theory of Just War) and B. Sutor, Od spravedlivé války ke spravedlivému míru? Etapy a šance procesu dějinného poučení (From Just War to Just Peace? Stages and Opportunities in the Process of Historical Teaching). The article focuses on the growing moral contradictoriness of wars in the global age which demands one deal with the classical politico-philosophical problem in the contemporary setting as well. A contradiction is pointed out which calls for the emergence of a social theory of new wars and of a new understanding of safety as well as of loose, metaphorical to the point of suggestive, employments of the concept of war. Further discussions on this theme are also linked with the changes in the forms of war, their agents as well as their causes and consequences, especially their worsening impact on social life and development. In the conditions of an emerging multi-polar order of international relations, the question of awareness of non-Western viewpoints in this area also comes to the fore. The critical spirit of both works under review contributes to the discussion of changes in the justice of war at the beginning of the twenty-first century in the context of the creation and functioning of global society.
EN
The purpose of the article is to summarize the pontificate of Pope Francis in the period between 2013–2022. The context of the analysis is the follow: how is the Church going through the processes of renewal, and reforms and what impact is it having? The text focuses on the issues: the peripheralization of the Church, the world of open borders, ecology and the Pope’s criticism of Europe.
9
Content available remote Teória spravodlivej vojny Francisca de Vitoriu
60%
EN
The paper deals with the theory of just war by Francisco de Vitoria. The theory under examination is complex, dealing ius ad bellum, ius in bello and (to a lesser extent) ius post bellum. The theory is characterized by efforts of its authors to promote the understanding of war as ultima ratio of the resolution of interstate conflicts, as well as to ensure that war is conducted effectively, with discipline, only to the extent necessary and only for as long as is really necessary, as well as humanely. According to Vitoria, war was just if it was waged by a legitimate authority (the ruler of the state that suffered harm), if there was demonstrably a just cause for it (iusta causa; harm caused by one state to another state) and if it was waged with the right intent (appropriate punishment of the enemy for causing harm) as well as in the correct way, i. e. in accordance with certain rules or restrictions.
EN
Ranged weapons have been accompanying people since ancient times. The bow and cross-bow have been used by almost all civilizations on every continent. The high efficiency of this projectile weapon is visible in giving it almost supernatural properties, which can be found, for example, in the Bible. Initially, the Church did not refer directly to the actions of archers and crossbowmen, but was rather mostly concerned with the issue of war in general. It was not until the end of the 11th century that Church restrictions on the use of the crossbow began. During the Second Lateran Council in 1139, canon 29 prohibited the use of both a bow and a crossbow in combat between Christians. However, following the development of throwable weapons, it seems that this did not have a major impact on the medieval military. The question then arises as to the sense of introducing a prohibition by calling an ecumenical council and then placing it in the universal ecclesiastical legislation. In order to understand the issue of sanctions, one has to look at the council’s decision through the prism of the medieval thought of canonists and lawyers. Canon 29 was commented on in the context of another important issue, which was “just war”. According to theologians and lawyers, the ban on the use of bows and crossbows did not apply to “just war”, which was a concept adopted from Roman thought and developed over the centuries by Christian intellectuals. The most important reason for the ban is therefore to limit the war itself. From the beginning of its existence, the Church was concerned with the justification for waging war. As long as the Roman Empire was ruled by pagan rulers, war appeared in Chris-tian thought as something unnecessary, even forbidden. With the advent of Constantine the Great and the Christianization of the Roman Empire, the Christian approach to war changed. The fall of the Empire in the West and the influx of Germanic peoples caused a new approach to the soldier profession to appear. The lack of a strong central authority forced the Church hierarchy to search for a new ally in ensuring peace in the world. Peace initiatives against knights and mighty looting and robbery were to reduce the scale of violence in early medieval Europe. Peace and with time God’s truce, together with the leagues of peace, forcibly began to bring peace and protect the peasants, clergy and merchants, who were most exposed to unlimited war. War was declared. However, the Christianization of the knighthood led to the militarization of the Church itself. Initially, the forbidden profession of a soldier made it possible to obtain salvation without changing the way of life. In this context, the type of weapon and the way of warfare ceased to matter, as long as the fight met the conditions of the “just war”.
PL
Broń miotająca towarzyszy człowiekowi od najdawniejszych czasów. Łuk i kusza używane były przez niemal wszystkie cywilizacje na każdym kontynencie. Duża skuteczność tej broni widoczna jest w nadawaniu jej bez mała właściwości nadprzyrodzonych, które odnaleźć można chociażby w Biblii. Początkowo Kościół nie odnosił się bezpośrednio do działań łuczników i kuszników, a jedynie rozważał zagadnienie wojny w ogóle. Dopiero pod koniec wieku XI rozpoczęło się kościelne ograniczanie zasad dotyczących posługiwania się kuszą. Podczas Soboru Laterańskiego II w 1139 r. kanonem 29. zabroniono pod karą klątwy w walce między chrześcijanami używania zarówno łuku, jak i kuszy. Śledząc jednak rozwój broni miotającej, wydaje się, że na średniowieczną wojskowość nie miało to większego wpływ. Pojawia się więc pytanie o sens wprowadzenia zakazu drogą zwołania soboru powszechnego i następnie umieszczenia go w powszechnym prawodawstwie kościelnym. Dla zrozumienia wydania sankcji trzeba spojrzeć na decyzję soboru przez pryzmat średniowiecznej myśli kanonistów i prawników. Kanon 29. komentowany był w kontekście innego ważnego zagadnienia, jakim była wojna sprawiedliwa. Otóż według teologów i prawników zakaz używania łuków i kusz nie dotyczył sytuacji prowadzenia wojny sprawiedliwej, ta zaś była konceptem przejętym z myśli rzymskiej i rozbudowanym przez wieki dzięki chrześcijańskim intelektualistom. Najważniejszym powodem zakazu będzie więc dążenie do ograniczenia samej wojny. Kościół od początku swego istnienia rozważał zasadność prowadzenia wojny. Dopóki Cesarstwo Rzymskie było zarządzane przez pogańskich władców, wojna jawiła się w myśli chrześcijańskiej jako coś niepotrzebnego, a nawet zakazanego. Wraz z pojawieniem się Konstantyna Wielkiego i chrystianizacją Imperium Romanum zmieniło się chrześcijańskie podejście do wojny. Upadek cesarstwa na Zachodzie i napływ ludów germańskich spowodował ponowną zmianę podejścia do zawodu żołnierza. Brak silnej władzy centralnej wymusił na hierarchii kościelnej poszukiwanie nowego sojusznika w zapewnianiu pokoju na świecie. Inicjatywy pokojowe skierowane przeciw rycerzom i możnym pałającymi się grabieżą i rozbojem miały zmniejszyć skalę przemocy w Europie wczesnego średniowiecza. Instytucje pokoju i rozejmu Bożego wraz z zawiązywanymi ligami pokoju paradoksalnie siłą zaczęły walczyć o zaprowadzenie spokoju i ochronę najbardziej narażonych na nieograniczoną wojnę: chłopów, duchownych i kupców. Wypowiedziano wojnę wojnie. Jednakże chrystianizacja rycerstwa doprowadziła do militaryzacji samego Kościoła. Początkowo zakazany zawód żołnierza z czasem umożliwiał dostąpienie zbawienia bez zmiany drogi życiowej. W tym kontekście przestał mieć znaczenie rodzaj broni i sposób wojowania, jeśli tylko walka spełniała warunki wojny sprawiedliwej.
11
Content available Just war in the classical world: Grece and Rome
51%
EN
'War is hell’ is one of the mantras used to offer an explanation for the lack of ethical guidance in the radical antagonism involved in that human conflict known as war. Throughout the history of mankind, there has been an effort to introduce ethical considerations in war-waging. However, humanity has assisted, defenseless, to the greatest injustices and disasters once and again. This situation highlights the problematic issues and paradoxes of the concept of “just war”. Our purpose here is to analyze the origins of this concept in the Greek ethical reflection during the Peloponnesian War and in the justification of the Roman expansion during the founding of the Roman Empire.
12
51%
EN
The theoretical reflection formulated in the neo-scholastic School of Salamanca has been regarded as the source of the contemporary concept of international relations: going beyond the paradigm of the time – determined, on the one hand, by the idea of the holy war and, on the other, by the doctrine of the just war – the Salamanca scholars laid down foundations for the edifice of modern international law. In this article the author argues that similar ideas preceding the reflection of the school of Salamanca, and often going even further, had appeared a hundred years earlier in the Cracow Academia in the context of a dispute between the Kingdom of Poland and the Teutonic Order. The culmination of this dispute was the Council of Constance. The Polish argument after the battle of Grunwald was based on law, and its unique feature was the return to the universalistic (Augustinian) nature of the just war. What is the most important element in Augustinian theology of war is Christianity’s universalism and recognition of moral equality of those engaged in military operations.
PL
Za początki współczesnej koncepcji relacji międzynarodowych uważa się dzisiaj refleksję teoretyczną sformułowaną przez neoscholastyków ze szkoły w Salamance. Wychodząc poza dotychczasowy paradygmat zakreślony z jednej strony przez ideę wojny świętej, z drugiej zaś przez chrześcijańską doktrynę wojny sprawiedliwej stworzyli oni fundament, na którym wspiera się do dziś gmach prawa międzynarodowego. W niniejszym artykule autor dowodzi, że analogiczne idee, wyprzedzające refleksję szkoły z Salamanki i często idące jeszcze dalej, pojawiły się sto lat wcześniej na Akademii Krakowskiej wśród polskich prawników zaangażowanych w polityczny spór pomiędzy Królestwem Polskim, a Zakonem Krzyżackim, którego kulminacja miała miejsce na Soborze w Konstancji. Argument strony polskiej po bitwie grunwaldzkiej miał jurydyczny charakter, a jego unikalną cechą był powrót do uniwersalistycznego charakteru wojny sprawiedliwej, jaki ta koncepcja posiadała w swej Augustyńskiej wersji. To, co najistotniejsze bowiem w Augustyńskiej teologii wojny, to zachowanie właściwego chrześcijaństwu uniwersalizmu i przekonanie o moralnej równości walczących podmiotów.
EN
The article explores Hans Kelsen’s theory of just war (bellum justum). It addresses the question of how and why the leading modern positivist thinker in fact embraced a key natural law theory, the concept of just war. In exploring this question, it collates the Viennese philosopher’s views with those of Polish late Middle Ages philosopher and lawyer, Paulus Vladimiri, who developed his own version of the bellum justum doctrine. In the first step, an outline of Paulus Vladimiri’s views on just war is presented. Secondly, the article offers an overview of two key theses of Kelsen’s theory of international law in order to provide the necessary context for his use of the term bellum justum. Next, the analysis moves to answering the question of whether Kelsen’s position might in fact be described as naturalist. In the last part, the article adds to some criticism of Kelsen’s use of the term “just war”. The conclusion underlines the points of intersection between the two doctrines. Although Kelsen’s attempt to harness the just war tradition within the confines of his own pure theory of law seems to have largely failed, it exemplifies a degree of universalism of the just war tradition and its potential for transcending divisions among schools of legal and philosophical thinking.
EN
The aim of this paper is to take a closer look at the similitudes between the ideas of Paweł Włodkowic (Paulus Vladimiri) and Francisco de Vitoria concerning the relations between Christians and infidels, especially on the issue of just war, and to advance a hypothesis to explain such similarities. Both scholars come from “frontier States” in the process of expansion and in close contact with non-Christian peoples. They had therefore direct knowledge of these different human groups. The equality between Christians and infidels, the right of all men to property and self-rule as well as their freedom to accept faith, the idea of a community of mankind, are some of the concepts developed by both thinkers. That is why they have been pointed out as beginners of the modern ius gentium. At the end of the paper, I will advance a hypothesis on the influence of Włodkowic on Vitoria.
EN
The debate over what constitutes a just war has an ancient history. Just war theories stem from philosophical, religious and military thinking. Christian religious thinkers, like St. Augustine (354–430), and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) spoke of laws of war and peace, reflecting on the reasons that bring about war (jus ad bellum) and the means employed in the conduct of war (jus in bello). A contemporary thinker who has developed a liberal theory on just and unjust wars that accentuates moral considerations is Michael Walzer. He used Clausewitz as a point of departure, aiming to construct an interdisciplinary liberal theory that brings together political theory, ethics and international relations. In this paper, I employ Walzer’s theory to assess the justifications for the 1982 Israeli war in Lebanon. Section (I) provides historical-philosophical background and context. Section (II) accentuates the underpinning principles of Walzer’s theory. Section (III) employs Walzer’s theory to analyse the 1982 Lebanon War. Section (IV) addresses the question whether the Lebanon War was justified. I argue that the 1982 Lebanon War was not justified.
16
Content available Wojna sprawiedliwa i wojna święta: raz jeszcze
51%
EN
This article describes the arguments of Paul Wladimiri, a 15th century Polish philosopher/theologian, about the justice of war (jus ad bellum). It defends his claim that natural reason sets limits on warfare and, specifically, bars holy wars, like the crusades of the Teutonic Knights – and, by extension, the wars of jihadist militants today. It also bars the ideological crusades of secular militants.
PL
Artykuł omawia argumenty Pawła Włodkowica, polskiego filozofa/teologa z XV wieku, dotyczące wojen etycznie usprawiedliwionych (ius ad bellum). Autor opowiada się za przyjęciem twierdzenia Włodkowica, zgodnie z którym rozum naturalny wyznacza granice dla uzasadnionych działań zbrojnych, a w szczególności zakazuje wszczynania wojen świętych, takich jak krucjaty Zakonu Krzyżackiego, wykluczając tym samym również wojny prowadzone przez współczesnych bojowników dżihadu. Zakazuje on także prowadzenia operacji militarnych wspieranych przez bojowo nastawionych rzeczników ideologii świeckich.
17
Content available remote Karl Jaspers a atomová bomba
51%
EN
This study does not pursue an interpretation of Karl Jaspers’ thinking as a whole or an elucidation of its basics. It is instead devoted to a sub-topic: the reflections and entreaties formulated by Jaspers in connection to the development and possible use of atomic or nuclear bombs. Jaspers’ ideas on nuclear weapons, control of their use, and nuclear disarmament are placed in a historical context. The basic question that the author asks himself and which he attempts to answer is whether Jaspers’ ideas have stood the test of time and whether they can throw a sufficient amount of light on the fragility of the peaceful coexistence between the two power blocs during the Cold War and the dangers to all of humanity that flowed from it.
CS
Tato studie se nezabývá interpretací Jaspersova myšlení vcelku nebo objasněním jeho základů. Příspěvek je věnován dílčímu tématu: úvahám a apelům, které Karl Jaspers formuloval v souvislosti se vznikem a možným užitím atomové bomby. Jaspersovy myšlenky o atomových zbraních, kontrole jejich použití a jaderném odzbrojení jsou zasazeny do historického kontextu. Základní otázkou, již si autor pokládá a na niž se snaží nalézt odpověď, je to, zda Jaspersovy myšlenky obstály pod zorným úhlem historie a dokázaly dostatečně objasnit vratkost mírové koexistence obou mocenských bloků za studené války i nebezpečí, která z toho pro celé lidstvo vyplývala.
18
Content available Diritto alla pace, giustizia e “guerra giusta”
51%
EN
Today, a third world war is taking place in pieces (Pope Francis) against the expectations born after the fall of the bipolar system. Conflicts today are fourth-generation wars, in which the subjects and the geopolitical scenario have changed. Wars pose the problem of the relationship between peace and justice. The right to peace (as a human right and as a constitutional value) is not yet recognized: this right would make all wars illegitimate. The right to peace requires the elimination of injustices generated by wars justified by deviant reasons and words. There are words, such as “peace” and “justice”, which cannot have a relativistic meaning because they express a higher value; they express the “just”. The legitimation of war (ius ad bellum) and the rules of conduct (ius in bello) affect various sectors (theological, philosophical, historical, juridical). Christianity was a turning point on the theme of the “just war”. The Enlightenment began the reflection on the value of peace in parallel with the common mentality, for which war is independent of any moral evaluation and only serves to achieve other political objectives (Clausewitz). This conception produced dramatic disasters in the twentieth century, generating two world wars and other violent armed conflicts. The theme of just war after World War II has engaged thinkers and theologians. In the secular world, the positions of Norberto Bobbio (supporter of legal pacifism) and Michael Walzer (just war as a defence out of necessity) are of particular interest. These ideas are representative and important but limited because they do not consider religious values. Religious values are important for building peace, according to the Gospel. The reflection on just war in Christianity was initiated by St Augustine and was continued by St Thomas Aquinas. But the current wars demand the development of reflection on the basis of the papal magisterium as well (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis), from which some conflicting indications arise: war is always unjust, or war of defence is just if it is used to defend man, his rights, and the common good. Religions have the task of building peace through dialogue.
IT
Oggi esiste la terza guerra mondiale a pezzi (papa Francesco), contro le attese nate dopo la caduta del sistema bipolare. I conflitti oggi sono guerre di quarta generazione, in cui sono cambiati i soggetti e lo scenario geopolitico. Le guerre pongono il problema del rapporto con la pace e con la giustizia. Il diritto alla pace (come diritto umano e come valore costituzionale) non è ancora riconosciuto: questo diritto renderebbe illegittime tutte le guerre. Il diritto alla pace richiede l’eliminazione delle ingiustizie, generate dalle guerre giustificate da ragioni e parole deviate. Vi sono parole, come pace e giustizia, che non possono avere un significato relativistico perché esse esprimono un valore superiore, esprimono il “giusto”. La legittimazione della guerra (ius ad bellum) e le regole di condotta (ius in bello) interessano diversi settori (teologico, filosofico, storico, giuridico). Il cristianesimo costituì un punto di svolta circa il tema della “guerra giusta”. L’illuminismo iniziò la riflessione sul valore della pace in modo parallelo alla mentalità comune, per cui la guerra prescinde da ogni valutazione morale e serve solo per conseguire altri obiettivi politici (Clausewitz). Questa concezione nel secolo XX ha prodotto disastri drammatici, generando due guerre mondiali e altri violenti conflitti armati. Il tema della guerra giusta nel secondo dopoguerra ha impegnato pensatori e teologi. Nel mondo laico di particolare interesse sono le posizioni di Norberto Bobbio (sostenitore del pacifismo giuridico) e di Michael Walzer (la guerra giusta come difesa per necessità). Queste idee sono rappresentative e importanti ma limitate, perché non tengono conto dei valori religiosi. I valori religiosi sono importanti per costruire la pace anche secondo il Vangelo. La riflessione sulla guerra giusta nel cristianesimo fu avviata da Sant’Agostino e fu proseguita da San Tommaso d’Aquino. Ma le guerre attuali vogliono uno sviluppo della riflessione anche sulla base del magistero pontificio (Giovanni XXIII, Paolo VI, Giovanni Paolo II, Benedetto XVI e Francesco), dal quale vengono alcune indicazioni: la guerra è sempre ingiusta, la guerra di difesa è giusta se per difendere l’uomo, i suoi diritti e il bene comune. Le religioni hanno il compito di costruire la pace attraverso il dialogo.
EN
This article contains a brief analysis of a key assumption of Michael Walzer’s version of just war theory, presented in his main work devoted to the ethics of war. In compliance with the requirement of the author of Just and unjust wars, the controversial nature of the principle of the moral equality of soldiers is exposed through a close analysis of the course of events marking the beginning of World War II – one of the main issues dealt with in Walzer’s book. The exclusion of individual responsibility for taking part in a military operation that finds no moral justification seems to entail a number of consequences that put a heavy burden on Walzer’s overall model of military ethics. In order to maintain the required level of coherence in just war theory one may need to modify Walzer’s principle of the moral equality of soldiers – at least in relation to the participants of the so-called devastating war.
PL
Artykuł zawiera szkicową analizę jednego z najważniejszych założeń teorii wojny sprawiedliwej zaprezentowanej przez Michaela Walzera w jego głównym dziele poświęconym etyce wojny. Zgodnie z postulatem autora Wojen sprawiedliwych i niesprawiedliwych, kontrowersyjny charakter zasady moralnej równości żołnierzy wyeksponowany zostaje poprzez jej konfrontację z rzeczywistym przebiegiem zdarzeń wyznaczających początek konfliktu zbrojnego, stanowiącego główny przedmiot rozważań Walzera, tj. drugiej wojny światowej. Wykluczenie indywidualnej odpowiedzialności osób biorących udział w operacji militarnej, która nie znajduje żadnego moralnego uzasadnienia, wydaje się pociągać za sobą szereg konsekwencji stanowiących poważne obciążenie dla całościowego modelu Walzera. Utrzymanie niezbędnego poziomu koherencji teorii wojny sprawiedliwej łączy się z koniecznością modyfikacji walzerowskiej zasady równości – przynajmniej w odniesieniu do uczestników tzw. wojny wyniszczającej.
20
Content available Edmund Burke: bezpieczeństwo i pokój europejski
51%
EN
Over the course of the 18th century one of the most hotly debated issues in international politics concerned the means of preserving the general peace of Europe. There were three main concepts of how to achieve this aim: perpetual peace, just war, and the balance of power. One of the most interesting voices in the entire debate belonged to Edmund Burke. Despite the fact that Burke concentrated most of his attention on the internal situation of Britain and Britain’s colonial possessions, he was also throughout his entire public career deeply interested in European politics. Unlike Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant or Emer de Vattel, Burke combined certain elements of the above concepts. He formulated an original idea of European peace based on the balance of power, international law and cultural values derived from a common European heritage.
PL
W XVIII wieku jeden z najczęściej dyskutowanych w Europie problemów z zakresu bezpieczeństwa i stosunków międzynarodowych dotyczył sposobów utrzymania pokoju. Dominowały trzy koncepcje: wiecznego pokoju, wojny sprawiedliwej oraz równowagi sił. Ważny głos w tej dyskusji zajął wybitny brytyjski myśliciel i polityk, Edmund Burke. Mimo że koncentrował on uwagę na sprawach wewnętrznych Wielkiej Brytanii i jej imperium, przez całą karierę publiczną interesował się też sytuacją na kontynencie europejskim. W przeciwieństwie do Rousseau, Kanta czy Vattela, połączył on wybrane elementy wszystkich trzech koncepcji. Przedstawił oryginalny pomysł na utrzymanie pokoju opartego na równowadze sił, prawie międzynarodowym i wspólnocie wartości łączących państwa europejskie, a wyrastających z dziedzictwa historycznego i kulturalnego.
first rewind previous Strona / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.