The future global system of international relations, the clash of civilizations, the revolution in military affairs, and the expansion of war present significant challenges to just-war theory. The problem is that modern definitions of just-war principles address conventional war between states; therefore, they may not apply to information-age warfare or complex conflict between transnational, national, subnational groups. Thus, the central research question is: Should American strategists accept, modify, or reject modern just-war theory as evaluation criteria of military operations in future warfare? Three case studies tested just-war theory: netwar, Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, and the strategic air campaign during Operation Desert Storm. The first step applied modern just-war theory to the military course of action to determine whether it was just or unjust. The second step applied realistic tests of power and national interests to determine whether to use or refrain from unjust military force. The third step evaluated absolute principles and moral consequences to determine if there is cause to modify just-war theory. Netwar and Kosovo recommended that strategists should modify the modern definitions of jus ad bellum to return to the classic definitions. Desert Storm recommended that strategists should accept the modern definitions of jus in bello.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.