Paper代写：Rawls' view on the war of War－r51due

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的paper代写范文- Rawls' view on the war of War，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了罗尔斯的正义战争观。《万民法》是罗尔斯国际正义思想的代表作，而正义战争观则是其国际正义思想的重要内容。罗尔斯在《万民法》中详细论述了正义战争观，但罗尔斯的正义战争观思想也存在很多缺陷。所谓的民主和平论，自由民主国家之间不发生战争的论断缺乏说服力，自由民主国家对法外国家发动战争的理由论证难以令人信服。

The law of the peoples is the representative of Ross ' international Justice thought. The view of just War is an important content of its international justice thought. Rawls elaborated on the view of the war of war in the law of the peoples, but Rawls ' idea of the war of war also has many flaws. The so-called democratic peace theory, the argument that there is no war between the free democracies is unconvincing, and the argument of the free democratic State for waging war against the outside world is unconvincing. The discussion on Soldiers ' War responsibility in the law of peoples is inconsistent with the relevant treatise in the Theory of justice.

The purpose of Rawls ' law of the peoples is to establish the political concept of justice and righteousness applied to international practice and national law, and also to the principles of the law of all peoples, to maintain world peace. Rawls divides the Society of all nations into five categories, one is a reasonable free people, the other is decent people, the third is the French state, the other is due to the disadvantage of the heavy burden of society, the five is benevolent autocracy society. The first two societies call the orderly people of the organization. Rawls believes that first, according to the concept of social contract, first of all, the legitimate free people in the original state to agree on the principles of all peoples law. Secondly, the same idea is extended to a society of decent people, and decent people are able to follow the laws of peoples of justice that are agreed between the legitimate free people in their original state. Finally, the legitimate free people and decent people to deal with the outside world and defend themselves, a heavily burdened society has the obligation to assist in the establishment of a just or decent system, thereby transforming the countries of the outside world and the societies burdened by disadvantage into the law of peoples, and the purpose of the law of Nations is achieved.

http://www.51due.net/writing/research-paper/sample31789.html

The principles of the laws of all peoples agreed upon by the legitimate free and decent peoples include eight principles. The people are free and independent, and to respect each other's freedom and independence, to abide by the agreements and commitments between the peoples, to be equal among the peoples, to respect each other's obligation of non-interference, to interfere with each other, and to the right of the people to self-defence, but not to wage war on grounds other than self-defence. All peoples have to respect human rights, and in order to protect human rights, people have to abide by specific restrictions on the establishment of war in war, and people have a responsibility to assist other people who live in unfavourable circumstances and cannot have a just or decent political and social system. The eight principles of the People's Law are summed up by Rawls from international law and its historical practice, and are therefore familiar with the traditional principles. Articles 5th and 7th of which dealt directly with the principles of war justice, Articles 1th, 3rd, 4th and 6th and the war justice. It can be seen that the view of war justice is the important content of Ross ' international justice. In the interpretation of the law of Peoples, Rawls puts forward that the right to freedom of independence and immunity from interference is not absolute, because when the outside countries violate human rights, the organized people can intervene in self-defence, exert pressure of public opinion, economic and military sanction, and even wage war.

The concrete content of Rawls ' view of the war is mainly concerned with the wars and war objects, the war purpose, the wartime justice and the war behavior principle in the postwar justice. Rawls sees no war between the legitimate free people. Rawls thinks there are two kinds of stability, one is based on justification of stability, the other is the stability of power balance. There is a stable of legitimate reasons, not a balance of power, between a reasonable and free people. The reason is that "the interests of these people are justified, and they are guided by a fair equality of all people and a proper mutual respect." These legitimate interests make the peace of democracy possible, and the lack of these interests makes peace between States best and only a temporary agreement, and must be built on a temporary balance of power. "Therefore, the free people will not fight to pursue their own rational interests, but only when security is threatened by the countries of the outside world, to defend their constitutional democratic system." Respect for and respect for human rights by decent people, respecting the different faiths of other members of society and respecting the political systems of other societies is the key to following the laws of peoples. Thus, decent people have a right to fight for self-defence. A benevolent authoritarian society also has the right to fight for self-defence, because a benevolent autocracy respects human rights. Societies burdened by unfavourable conditions also have the right to self-defence for the protection of human rights.

Rawls believes that the object of the war is outside the French state. The outside world refuses to obey the reasonable laws of the peoples, or is aggressive and violates human rights. The outside countries are the factors that deter social stability, and they will wage war in pursuit of the rational interests of the state. Thus, free people, decent people, socially disadvantaged and benevolent authoritarian societies have the right to fight for self-defence, which is the object of war, and the purpose of war is to uphold human rights. In addition to the issue of war Justice, Rawls demonstrates the just-right principles involving wartime justice and postwar justice. The main purpose of the war was to achieve justice among peoples, a lasting peace; a well-organized society must distinguish between leaders and officials, soldiers and civilians of the outside world, and the leaders and officials of the outside world, in the conduct of war. And the senior officers of the soldiers, while civilians and ordinary soldiers do not have to bear the responsibility for war; the orderly people must respect the human rights of the outside countries, for the purpose of the war is to achieve justice and lasting peace among the people. The organized people need to declare their war purposes for lasting peace through acts and declarations in war. These doctrine of just-war principles include the moral norms and constraints on the related acts of warfare, and the concept of the doctrine of the right to peace is that of upholding human rights and lasting. But Rawls's view on the right of war is deficient in the theory of democracy and peace, the war between the French and the foreign countries.

As mentioned earlier in the issue of war justice, Rawls believes that there is no war between free people and proposes the so-called democratic peace theory. Rawls argues for the free people in many ways. First, he believes that the basic needs of these free peoples are met and that the peoples do not seek to expand their territories and occupy other peoples, because "these people respect the principles shared by a legitimate government and are not touched by the passions of power and glory, nor the vanity that governs others." [1]89 Therefore, a peace that is brought about by the satisfaction of the free and Democratic peoples.] Secondly, the self-esteem of the free people is based on the justice and decency of the internal political and social systems, as well as the freedom and integrity of the citizens, so that there will be no war waged by Rousseau's so-called self-esteem injury, which is mutual respect and equality among the free people. In addition, for reference to Montesquieu's idea of "moderate fashion", commercial society cultivates citizens ' diligence, integrity and other virtues, and the commercial society tends to be peaceful. Rawls argues that there is no justification for war between free people with commercial dealings, and that goods can be obtained through exchange and trade in a low-cost way. Finally, Rawls also resorted to historical facts to substantiate the theory of democratic peace. He believed that there was no record of war between the democratic societies in which the people were located since 1800. The fact that such historical experience confirms the view that no war between free peoples occurs.

But Rawls's theory of democratic peace is untenable. In fact, there are exceptions to the history of war between free people, such as the Second Anglo-American War of 1812. The United States was founded after the War of Independence in 1776, and in 1812 the United States was a free democracy, and the war between Britain and the United States was a war between pure and free democracies. The Second Anglo-American War is a counter example of a free people without war. Rawls admits that the stable nation-state that has now been established has also undergone imperial warfare, such as the seven-year war between Britain and France, but Rawls has not explained it. At the same time, Rawls himself acknowledges that the constitutional democracies of the reality often intervene in small and weak countries that have established democracies, or are waging war on grounds of expansion. Such interference is behind the economic interests of the constitutional democracies, and the argument that a free and democratic state waged against the French and foreign countries in the interests of the economy makes business dealings conducive to peace is unconvincing. Because, compared to commercial trade, war may allow free democracies to earn higher returns at lower cost. The American War on Iraq, for example, is no doubt related to America's coveted oil resources in Iraq, which can control Iraq's oil resources through the war in Iraq. Therefore, the history of the war between the free and democratic countries and the reality of the free democracy based on economic interests of the foreign countries to wage war against the outside world to illustrate Rawls's theory of democratic peace is unconvincing. The theory of democracy and peace is overthrown by history and cannot be proved by reality.

The object of war in the civil law is that of the outside world, because the countries of France have not followed a reasonable law of peoples, have not respected the human rights of the civilian population of the outside countries, or have been aggressive against other peoples, threatening social stability and lasting peace. But the well-organized people have insufficient justification for the war between the French and the foreign countries. As mentioned above, the law of peoples has undergone two stages, one is to agree on the principles of the People's Law among the free and democratic peoples, the other is to extend the principles of the law of peoples to decent people, and decent people will follow the laws of all peoples. In the absence of equal participation in the principles of the laws of the peoples, the countries of France and the countries that are burdened by the unfavourable conditions and the benevolent autocracy do not agree to the principles of the Law of peoples. Therefore, it is not persuasive that the extraterritorial state does not follow a legitimate law of peoples.

In addition, the fact that the absence of respect for human rights or aggressive characteristics in countries outside the country often becomes a pretext for free and democratic states to intervene in the pursuit of economic interests. The war in Iraq, for example, was based on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is untrue that the possession of weapons of mass destruction has proved to be an aggressive reason for Iraq. Rawls has no equal view of the outside world and the free people. When the democratic society of the free people is in wartime for the rational interests of the state, it only shows the legitimacy of the War act and does not affect the judgment of its nature. But the foreign countries fought for the rational interests of the country, and when they launched the aggressive war, they became the objects of the wars. This unequal treatment is also difficult to justify the freedom of the people to wage war against countries outside France.

In the national law on the responsibility of war, Rawls distinguishes between the leaders and officials of the outside countries, the soldiers and the civilian population, since different groups of people assume different political responsibilities. Rawls believes that the leaders, officials and senior officials of the soldiers of the outside world should bear the responsibility of war, while the ordinary soldiers and civilians do not have to bear the responsibility of war. Rawls has also discussed the problem of soldiers ' responsibility for war justice in the theory of justice, but it is not consistent with Rawls's discussion on the responsibility of soldiers in the law of peoples. In the theory of justice, Rawls thinks that conscription exists in a democratic society, and one can refuse to obey the obligation of the armed forces in a special war. "As long as he discovers that the moral code of war is always violated, he has the right to refuse military service on the grounds that he has the right to ensure that he fulfils his natural obligations." "A soldier is ordered to engage in unlawful acts of war, so he can refuse to fight." Therefore the soldier has the responsibility to refuse to participate in the war, the soldier must bear the certain war responsibility. Therefore, the two kinds of discourse on the responsibility of war are not consistent. The question of the soldier's war responsibility remains to be discussed, and a detailed distinction should be made between the conditions under which soldiers should bear the responsibility for war.

Rawls ' idea of just-war is to seek lasting world peace, safeguard human rights and uphold justice among all peoples. But its discourse on the lack of war between democracies cannot be proved by history, and the theory of democratic peace can only be a utopia. Instead, the so-called Democratic peace Theory provides the theoretical support for the free democratic State to interfere with the outside countries. The reasons for the interference of the outside countries are insufficient, the outside countries did not participate in the principles of the laws of the peoples, and therefore did not follow the principles of the laws of all peoples and could not be a justification for waging war against the outside countries, while Rawls did not treat the countries of France and the liberal democracies equally. The problem of the soldiers ' War responsibility is the contradiction of Rawls ' just thought, the soldiers themselves are passive and exploited in the war, but the soldiers have certain autonomy and the responsibility of refusing to participate in the unjust war based on conscience. The issue of soldiers ' war responsibility remains to be clarified.

想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要paper代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有论文代写、assignment代写、paper代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有paper代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。