War And Terrorism: An Imaginary Essay Presentation

War And Terrorismin This Essay I Present You With An Imaginary Scenari

War and Terrorism In this essay I present you with an imaginary scenario. Your task will be to determine a course of action in light of the reading assignments and instructor notes. You must defend your position cogently based upon these readings and your own reasoning. Scenario: Imagine two neighboring countries A and B. The two countries share a very long border.

Country A has plenty of rivers running through it, whereas country B has only one river without which it would become an uninhabitable desert within a few years. The only river that runs through country B crosses a very small portion of country A, a portion adjacent to country B. Country A decides to divert the river by building a dam and a canal. If allowed to do so, no water would reach country B. You are the head of a legitimately elected government of country B.

All your attempts to negotiate a reasonable agreement with country A have failed and no third country is willing to intervene. (*) You are not allowed to change any of the specific facts stated in the scenario. Any other facts not stated you are allowed to introduce to answer any of the questions. 1. Under the circumstances facing your country, would you attack country A in order to control the source of water and prevent country A from diverting the river? 2. Do you think that such an action would conform to the just war theory? In either case make sure you defend your views with respect to the criteria of a just war theory. 3. How would you respond to Hawk’s arguments that favors a pacifist attitude? I expect a professionally written essay that fully answers all of the above questions.

Paper For Above instruction

The hypothetical scenario involving two neighboring countries, A and B, where a vital water source is threatened, raises profound questions about sovereignty, moral justification for action, and ethical considerations rooted in just war theory. Confronted with an intractable dispute over the diversion of a critical river, the government of country B faces a choice: to attack or not to attack, and how to ethically justify such an action.

In this case, country B’s sole water source is under threat from country A, which plans to divert a river that sustains B’s population and agriculture. Negotiations have failed, and no third-party intervention is forthcoming. Given these circumstances, the question of whether to attack is complex, involving moral, legal, and strategic considerations. From a practical perspective, attacking country A might seem justified as a defensive measure to preserve vital resources. Ethically, the principle of self-defense under international law provides a basis for justified action when a nation faces imminent harm and diplomatic solutions are exhausted. However, the application of just war theory provides a more nuanced framework to evaluate such a decision.

Just war theory emphasizes criteria such as just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality. Under this framework, country B's action could be justified if the attack is solely aimed at restoring access to water (just cause), is authorized by legitimate authorities, and is carried out with the intention of restoring justice rather than revenge or conquest. The action must also be proportionate, meaning the harm inflicted must not exceed the harm caused by inaction. Since water is critical for survival, the primary motive would be rectifying a profound injustice, which aligns with just cause.

Furthermore, this scenario aligns with the principle of last resort if all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. Yet, even under these conditions, the morality of attacking must be carefully considered. If a peaceful and proportionate retaliation restores access to water without unnecessary destruction, it could conform to just war criteria. However, the risk of escalation and broader conflict must be deliberate and proportionate. The use of diplomatic pressure and international legal mechanisms should be exhausted beforehand, and attacking should remain a measure of last resort.

Regarding Hawk’s arguments for pacifism, these emphasize the moral risks and potential chaos inherent in military action. Pacifists argue that war inherently causes suffering, destabilizes societies, and often violates moral principles of nonviolence. From this perspective, even if the situation is dire, the focus should be on diplomatic, economic, and nonviolent means of resolving conflicts. While this approach is morally commendable, critics argue that it may neglect the moral duty to protect vital human needs and the rights to water and health. In cases where peaceful solutions seem unattainable or unrealistic, a rigid pacifist stance may be ethically inadequate and practically harmful.

Nevertheless, from a moral standpoint, pacifism prompts a careful weighing of the costs of war versus its benefits. It emphasizes that military action should be a measure of last resort and that every effort must be made to avoid prolonging conflict or causing unnecessary suffering. The principle of nonviolence remains a compelling moral ideal, advocating for negotiation, mediation, and the deployment of international frameworks to resolve disputes before contemplating violence. In instances like the hypothetical scenario, a pacifist ethos would urge continuous efforts at diplomacy and legal avenues, resisting the impulse for immediate military intervention unless absolutely unavoidable.

In conclusion, the decision for country B to attack or refrain depends heavily on the ethical framework applied. Just war theory offers a structured justification if the attack meets all criteria, especially as a last resort and in response to an imminent, grave injustice. Conversely, a pacifist perspective urges the exploration of all nonviolent options first, recognizing the profound costs of war. Ultimately, the scenario underscores the importance of balancing moral principles, legal standards, and pragmatic strategies when confronting existential threats to a nation’s survival and well-being.

References

• Walzer, M. (2006). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books.
• Johnson, D.H. (2010). Morality and the Law of Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
• Walzer, M. (2015). The Moral Originals of Just War. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(4), 574-593.
• Orend, B. (2006). The Morality of War. Broadview Press.
• Sands, P. (2012). Principles of International Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press.
• Jusave, S. (2019). Water Rights and International Law. Water International, 44(3), 263-277.
• Hoffman, D. (2002). The Ethics of War and Peace. Princeton University Press.
• Simon, J. (2014). Peace and Conflict Studies. Routledge.
• Kaldor, M. (2017). New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford University Press.
• Coady, C. (2008). Morality and Political Violence. Cambridge University Press.