A_Critical_Examination_Of_Valls’_Interpretation_Of_Just_War

A Critical Examination Of Valls’ Interpretation Of Just War Theory A Critical Examination of Valls’ Interpretation of Just War Theory In light of recent events and the current “war on terrorism” it seems critical to move away from political rhetoric and approach the issue with as much reasonable objectivity as possible. The central question that Andrew Valls attempts to answer is weather terrorism can be justified. He argues that it can in some cases when measured against just war theory. Just war theory sets moral limits on the waging of war while justifying its legitimacy. I am in agreement with his conclusion but my defense of his argument relies on acceptance of his definition of terrorism, which seems to me rather broad. Valls defines terrorism as political violence done to persons or property committed by nonstate actors. It must be politically motivated for any other form of violence is considered crime and subject to domestic laws. He adds violence against property to include attacks that would be considered terrorism even though they do not harm people. An example of this would be the bombing of an abortion clinic. When he limits the violence to nonstate actors, he doesn’t deny the existence of state sponsored war, just, terrorism, theory, violence, valls, definition, one, nonstate, under, seems, people, must, principle, political, effect, cases, valls’, states, state, requirements, meet, issue, considered, argument, actors, using, two, terrorists, terrorist, standard, presents, place, noncombatants, legitimate