Just War Theory and the 2003 Decision to Invade Iraq
Abstract : In American history few foreign policy decisions have been as controversial as the Bush Administration's choice to invade Iraq in 2003. This decision had many supporters but it also had significant, forceful opposition from both domestic and international opponents. The intellectual under-pinning for the opposition largely came from the philosophical doctrine of Just War Theory and the international law it informed. Accepting that war itself is terribly destructive and should be avoided if possible, this theory holds that a nation s decision to go to war is nonetheless justified only if certain criteria are met. This paper briefly discusses the historical origins of Just War Theory, concisely reviews the tenets of Just War Theory as they stand today, and examines if the Bush Administration adhered to the Jus Ad Bellum tenets of Just War Theory prior to its decision to invade Iraq.
What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?
President George W. Bush historically challenged the United Nations Security Council when he uttered some memorable words in the course of his September 12, 2002, speech to the General Assembly: “Will the UN serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” In the aftermath of the Iraq war there are at least two answers to this question. The answer of the U.S. government would be to suggest that the United Nations turned out to be irrelevant due to its failure to endorse recourse to war against the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The answer of those who opposed the war is that the UN Security Council served the purpose of its founding by its refusal to endorse recourse to a war that could not be persuasively reconciled with the UN Charter and international law. This difference of assessment is not just factual, whether Iraq was a threat and whether the inspection process was succeeding at a reasonable pace; it was also conceptual, even jurisprudential. The resolution of this latter debate is likely to shape the future role of the United Nations, as well as influence the attitude of the most powerful sovereign state as to the relationship between international law generally and the use of force as an instrument of foreign policy.
The Intuitive Physics of the Equilibrium of the Lever and of the Hydraulic Pressures: Implications for the Teaching of Elementary Physics.
The research field of intuitive physics focuses on discrepancies between 
theoretical and intuitive physical knowledge. Consideration of these 
discrepancies can help in the teaching of elementary physics. However, 
evidence shows that theoretical and intuitive physical knowledge may also 
be congruent. Physics teaching could further benefit from understanding the 
reasons for this congruence. The present study explored these reasons by 
investigating the intuitive physics of the equilibrium of the lever and of the 
hydraulic pressures. It was found that the intuitive-physics law of the lever 
was multiplicative for all participants while the intuitive-physics law of the 
hydraulic pressures differed among participants. Since these laws are 
equally simple and the layman probably has had extensive experience with 
the lever and scarce or no experience with the hydraulic lift, these findings 
support the general hypothesis that physical laws and corresponding 
intuitive-physics laws are congruent when people have had experience with 
the respective phenomena. The results and theoretical considerations suggest 
two strategic principles for teaching elementary physics.