지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
DBpia Top 10%동일한 주제분류 기준으로최근 2년간 이용수 순으로 정렬했을 때
해당 논문이 위치하는 상위 비율을 의미합니다.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In this article, I investigate critically the some issues and problems related to the ‘normative justification possibility’ and the ‘realization possibility’ of just war. And the ‘provisional’ conclusion or answer to them is as follows.
1) Of the ‘jus ad bellum’ principles, the ones connected with ‘the good’ as a source of morality are deprived of the qualification as the standard of legitimacy. After the coordination of the principles of war justice, the war as a humanitarian intervention can be justified by the way of the procedures of argument in the discours ethics.
2) The jus ad bellum principles are to be divided strictly into the ‘genuine principles’ and the ‘restriction conditions of realization’. In that case, possibility of realization of just war comes to depend on entirely the extent of restriction of those conditions. At the same time, the war as a humanitarian intervention that carries out in order to restore unjust situation to its original state turns out to be just in itself irrespective of victory or defeat.
3) The sovereignty of a certain independent country cannot have no qualification to be protected when the human rights and liberties of the members of that country are violated severely and devastated. For that reason, in the practical philosophical argument on the just war as a humanitarian intervention, the human rights comes to have a superior status in the normative dimension compared with the sovereignty.
4) At the present time, preemptive strikes is difficult to be justified normatively.
In the first place, owing to the rational anticipation on the potentials for errors in data and information about threatening situation, the procedures of argument on justice or unjustice of preemptive strikes seems difficult to come into the mutual understanding and consensus.
Secondly, it is nearly impossible to prove the existence of sufficient and obvious threatening situation objectively which is indispensible for justifying preemptive strikes.
Thirdly, it seems very hard to justify normatively preemptive strikes because of its danger of turning out to be unjust war after the fact.
Fourthly, the rational participants in the discours ethics may never give legitimacy to preemptive strikes, if they are sure that there is possibility that ruling group in a particular country tries to make bad use of it arbitrarily.
In examining the inner correlation between present situation of Korean peninsula and the new just war types on the basis of the outcom e of such work, ‘tem porary’ diagnosis is as follow.
1) Firstly, it is untimely to dispute the legitimacy of the just war as humanitarian intervention in connection with the reality of the human rights condition in North Korea.
2) Secondly, in the present circum stances, preemptive strikes mentioned frequently in America and Korea does not satisfy the conditions of ‘obvious and sufficient threatening situation.’
1) Of the ‘jus ad bellum’ principles, the ones connected with ‘the good’ as a source of morality are deprived of the qualification as the standard of legitimacy. After the coordination of the principles of war justice, the war as a humanitarian intervention can be justified by the way of the procedures of argument in the discours ethics.
2) The jus ad bellum principles are to be divided strictly into the ‘genuine principles’ and the ‘restriction conditions of realization’. In that case, possibility of realization of just war comes to depend on entirely the extent of restriction of those conditions. At the same time, the war as a humanitarian intervention that carries out in order to restore unjust situation to its original state turns out to be just in itself irrespective of victory or defeat.
3) The sovereignty of a certain independent country cannot have no qualification to be protected when the human rights and liberties of the members of that country are violated severely and devastated. For that reason, in the practical philosophical argument on the just war as a humanitarian intervention, the human rights comes to have a superior status in the normative dimension compared with the sovereignty.
4) At the present time, preemptive strikes is difficult to be justified normatively.
In the first place, owing to the rational anticipation on the potentials for errors in data and information about threatening situation, the procedures of argument on justice or unjustice of preemptive strikes seems difficult to come into the mutual understanding and consensus.
Secondly, it is nearly impossible to prove the existence of sufficient and obvious threatening situation objectively which is indispensible for justifying preemptive strikes.
Thirdly, it seems very hard to justify normatively preemptive strikes because of its danger of turning out to be unjust war after the fact.
Fourthly, the rational participants in the discours ethics may never give legitimacy to preemptive strikes, if they are sure that there is possibility that ruling group in a particular country tries to make bad use of it arbitrarily.
In examining the inner correlation between present situation of Korean peninsula and the new just war types on the basis of the outcom e of such work, ‘tem porary’ diagnosis is as follow.
1) Firstly, it is untimely to dispute the legitimacy of the just war as humanitarian intervention in connection with the reality of the human rights condition in North Korea.
2) Secondly, in the present circum stances, preemptive strikes mentioned frequently in America and Korea does not satisfy the conditions of ‘obvious and sufficient threatening situation.’
목차
논문개요
1. 들어가는 말
2. 두 차원의 정의와 정의로운 전쟁을 둘러싼 몇 가지 쟁점과 문제
3. 일반적으로 통용되는 ‘전쟁 개시의 정의’ 원칙
4. 정의로운 전쟁의 두 가능성 조건과 관련된 쟁점 및 문제에 관한 ‘잠정’ 결론
5. 맺는 말 : 한반도 현실과 정의로운 전쟁의 내적 연관성
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
전쟁의 윤리적 인식과 정당화 가능성
윤리연구
2016 .09
-
[일반] 기독교와 전쟁 : 정의로운 전쟁(정당 전쟁, Just War)에서 정의로운 평화(Just Peace)로
성서마당
2022 .12
-
그림책에 나타난 어린이의 전쟁 경험 비교 연구
아동청소년문학연구
2019 .12
-
서양철학의 전쟁 담론에 대한 비판적 고찰 ? 환경 윤리적 관점에서
동서철학연구
2015 .12
-
아프가니스탄전쟁의 장기화 원인에 대한 연구 : 통일과정에 주는 함의를 바탕으로
통일인문학
2019 .03
-
‘爭’과 ‘戰’에서 ‘戰爭’으로 ―戰國時代 전쟁 개념의 변화
중국학논총
2023 .06
-
기독교와 이슬람의 전쟁과 평화 －한국전쟁에 갖는 의미를 중심으로－
종교연구
2022 .08
-
1960년대 한・일 <전쟁문학전집> 비교 연구
일본연구
2019 .01
-
새로운 전쟁의 “전쟁경제”: 세 차례의 아프가니스탄 전쟁
군사연구
2020 .01
-
핵무기 시대의 제한전쟁 수행요인에 관한 연구
군사연구
2023 .06
-
전쟁에 대한 저항 폭력: 젠더 관점에서 본 전쟁 내러티브
구약논단
2021 .09
-
전쟁문학론의 전개와 폭력의 내면화－식민지 말과 한국전쟁기 문학론을 중심으로-
우리문학연구
2020 .04
-
요한계시록의 종말론적 전쟁 재해석 - 참말과 거짓말의 싸움
신약논단
2021 .12
-
아우구스티누스의 ‘의로운 전쟁’ 이론
신학전망
2018 .03
-
중세 말 전쟁에 관한 규범과 현실
서양사론
2020 .01
-
가사(歌辭)를 통해 본 한국전쟁의 기억과 증언
동아인문학
2024 .12
-
6.25 전쟁과 한국교회
개혁논총
2020 .01
-
20세기 전쟁의 ‘미스터리한’ 이중주(二重奏), 1900-1950 -절망과 희망 사이에서-
서양사론
2024 .06
-
한국전쟁과 전남지역 기독교 연구 - 현황과 과제 -
남도문화연구
2020 .01
-
구상 전쟁기의 시 · 에세이의 애도 양상
한국문학과 예술
2017 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-100-001619916