Just Cause (in War)
Classical just war theory distinguishes the justice of going to war (jus ad bellum) from the justice of how war is waged (jus in bello) (see War). As the theory of jus ad bellum evolved over the past millennium, a war had to satisfy multiple criteria to be just. The war must be waged (1) by a legitimate authority who is (2) acting with right intention; (3) the war must have reasonable prospects of success at attaining its goals, the importance of which is (4) proportional to the harm that the war can be expected to inflict (see Proportionality (in War)); (5) the war must be the last resort; and (6) there must be a just cause for the war. None of these criteria is clear or unambiguous, but just cause is perhaps the most contested. 
 
 
Keywords: 
 
practical (applied) ethics; 
war and conflict
War, Aggression and Self-Defence by Yoram Dinstein
Yoram Dinstein’s seminal textbook is an essential guide to the legal issues of war and peace, armed attack, self-defence and enforcement measures taken under the aegis of the Security Council. This fourth edition incorporates new material on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, response to armed attacks by terrorists, recent resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the latest pronouncements of the International Court of Justice. In addition, several new sections consider consent by States to the use of force (as expressed either ad hoc or by treaty); an armed attack by non-State actors; the various phases in the Gulf War up to the occupation of Iraq in 2003 and beyond; and immunities from jurisdiction. With many segments rewritten to reflect recent State practice, this book remains a comprehensive and highly readable introduction to the legal issues surrounding war and self-defence. An indispensable tool for students and practitioners.
The Use of Qualitative Information in Macro-Economic Policy Analysis
The majority of macro-economic policy models takes for granted that conflicts among objectives can be assessed by means of a tradeoff analysis. Such tradeoffs imply that sacrifices and benefits of various impacts of decisions can be measured on a cardinal scale, so that a conventional macro-economic utility or welfare analysis can be applied.