000			01642cam a2200169 4500500
005			20250121111520.0
041			_afre
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aBrunstetter, Daniel R. _eauthor
700	1	0	_a Héberlé, Jean-Claude _eauthor
245	0	0	_aYes, We Can? The Just War Theory in American Presidential Campaigns (2000-2008)
260			_c2012.
500			_a93
520			_aThe just war tradition provides an ensemble of principles for when and how to wage war, but these principles are subject to hierarchy and interpretation. In the United States, the division between Republicans and Democrats delineates different approaches to interpreting the just war tradition that influence the way its principles are applied. To explore the ways in which the just war tradition has been appropriated, I examine the presidential debates of 2000 (Bush-Gore), 2004 (Bush-Kerry) and 2008 (McCain-Obama). These debates provide a lens through which to interpret the salient questions regarding war in the first decade of the third millennium from the perspective of the United States. They demonstrate important differences in the interpretation and application of the principles of last resort, just cause, and legitimate authority. They also suggest that the just war tradition changes not only in relation to external factors (such as terrorism), but also, at least in the US context, according to the perceived failure of the previous administration.
786	0		_nRaisons politiques | o 45 | 1 | 2012-03-29 | p. 59-80 | 1291-1941
856	4	1	_uhttps://shs.cairn.info/journal-raisons-politiques-2012-1-page-59?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080
999			_c540005 _d540005