This paper compares qualitatively two frameworks that have legalized under certain circumstances the large scale of use of force: Saint Agustin’s Christian just war theory and jihad, the Islamic version of a just war...This paper compares qualitatively two frameworks that have legalized under certain circumstances the large scale of use of force: Saint Agustin’s Christian just war theory and jihad, the Islamic version of a just war. It first provides a brief description of the just war and jihad, dividing them into three sections: Jus ad bellum, jus inbello, and jus post bellum. Using the same framework to describe both theories allows us to explore their discrepancies and communalities. Then, it uses Al-Qaeda’s war as a case study to examine if it can be qualified as jihad, showing that it does fundamentally diverge from these theories because it does not pass the legitimacy test. Finally, this paper concludes that while the two traditions provide similar frameworks to decide why, when, and how to go and conduct a legitimate war, they are different in their details.展开更多
文摘This paper compares qualitatively two frameworks that have legalized under certain circumstances the large scale of use of force: Saint Agustin’s Christian just war theory and jihad, the Islamic version of a just war. It first provides a brief description of the just war and jihad, dividing them into three sections: Jus ad bellum, jus inbello, and jus post bellum. Using the same framework to describe both theories allows us to explore their discrepancies and communalities. Then, it uses Al-Qaeda’s war as a case study to examine if it can be qualified as jihad, showing that it does fundamentally diverge from these theories because it does not pass the legitimacy test. Finally, this paper concludes that while the two traditions provide similar frameworks to decide why, when, and how to go and conduct a legitimate war, they are different in their details.
