Questo sito utilizza cookie di terze parti per inviarti pubblicità in linea con le tue preferenze. Se vuoi saperne di più clicca QUI 
Chiudendo questo banner, scorrendo questa pagina, cliccando su un link o proseguendo la navigazione in altra maniera, acconsenti all'uso dei cookie. OK

NATO's out-of-area operations, Just War and game theory

Is war an obsolete mechanism of regulating disputes among political actors? If so, what explains why it is still a common theme within our current system of international affairs? Is there more than the mere necessity of protecting territorial interests beyond the decision of waging a conflict? To what extent the moral and humanitarian justifications behind interventions are able to secure a peace international environment?
The present thesis takes momentum from the necessity of finding an answer to such crucial questions and to comprehend the way states and international institutions conceive conflict today. In particular, it aims to understand how NATO, the current most relevant actor in the field of security, has been conceiving war, whose perceived essence has been evolving considerably over time and how it still believes in the potentiality of armed interventions to provide with peace and stability.
However, the idea of investigating on the topic has been incubated by the fieldtrip to Brussels offered by the Master program where I had the chance the visit of NATO Headquarters and to exchange opinions with experts on the field (both working for NATO and not). On the other hand, the course in Rational Choice, Game Theory & International Relations has inspired and encouraged me to conduct more study on the topic by adopting the fascinating game theoretical approach.
The goal is to understand the meaning and the value of “just war” today with the ultimate need of comprehend what determines NATO‟s evaluation of the lawfulness of an intervention. In order to pursue such goal, Chapter 1 will introduce an historical digression on the discipline of just war which will be articulated around three main motifs: the religious, the political and the moral justification. Starting from the Grecian idea of justice and from the early forms of just war within the Roman tradition, it will introduce the concept according to the Christian, Jewish and Islamic belief. Furthermore, it will be shown how the theory was interpreted by scholars such as Machiavelli and Grotius and how it has been
influenced and shaped by historical events, from the Westphalian peace to the Paris Peace Conference, which gave birth to the League of Nations. The first chapter will conclude its analysis with a final remark on the essence of just war today and it will give space to a brief observation on how the major Schools of International Relations – namely, Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism – conceive conflicts.
Chapter 2 will constitute the way through which it will be possible to approach the core subject of the thesis: NATO and its ius ad bellum. The section will focus its attention on the causes, motivations and goals employed by the Organization to present its actions as lawful. Moreover, the analysis will continue with the study of two main sources of legitimization of the Alliance: the exogenous source will be constituted by the constraints to operate deriving from the United Nations, while the endogenous source will concern NATO‟s decision-making procedure.
In the third chapter it will be illustrated how the arguments sustaining the North Atlantic operations have been experiencing a shift from the political toward the moral sphere and evidence will be provided through the cases of the Yugoslavian War and Libya.
Finally, Chapter four will devote its attention to how the political and the moral value, together with the cost of intervening have been playing a role in the Alliance‟s process of decision-making. This will be illustrated through two examples in which the Organization decided not to interfere – the conflicts in Rwanda and in Georgia – and through some game theoretical models which will allow us to build a general outline for NATO‟s decisions.

Mostra/Nascondi contenuto.
« Comme la mode fait l'agrément, aussi fait-elle la justice. La justice change selon les pays. Ce qui est juste sur le bord d'un fleuve est injuste de l'autre côté; et cette instabilité est encore un effet de la faiblesse humaine, car il fallait que la justice fût unie à la force pour conserver la paix, qui est le souverain bien. [...] La justice n'a donc été chez les différentes nations que l'expression de la volonté du plus fort. Ainsi il ne faut pas dire au peuple que ses lois sont injustes; car il est quelquefois nécessaire de le tromper; il ne faut pas même lui dire qu'il doit obéir aux lois parce qu'elles sont justes; il n'aurait qu'à vouloir les examiner: il faut lui dire qu'il doit leur obéir parce qu'elles sont établies, car il faut surtout éviter les séditions. » 1 Blaise Pascal, Pensées 309 Chapter 1 Classical and modern theory of just war and jus ad bellum The perpetual genesis of the idea of „just‟ and „justice‟ Introduction To understand when a conflict is considered legitimate today and to comprehend the bases that determine NATO‟s decision-making on the lawfulness of an intervention, it is necessary to introduce a preliminary historical remark on the topic, which has constituted the focal point of the discipline of “just war”. The main overarching idea of the present chapter is that affirming that an action or a phenomenon is just implies stating our own ideas about the world but also reveals those norms and values that we have been absorbing from the society. Thus, the evaluation of the lawfulness of an armed intervention encapsulates social, societal, sometimes even geographical and generational significances. 1 Translation of the author of the present work: “As customs determine what is agreeable, also does it determine justice. Justice changes from country to country. What is just on one bank of a river is unjust on the other bank. It is this instability that is further effect of human weakness, since it would be necessary to combine justice and strength to consolidate peace, which is the supreme good. Therefore justice has not been anything but the expression of the will of the strongest in the different nations. So, one cannot tell people that their laws are unjust because sometimes it is necessary to break transgress them. Similarly, one cannot tell them to break laws since laws are just. There will not be any much choice but to examine them. It is necessary to tell people to obey since laws are established and, most of all, because we must avoid seditions.” 1

Tesi di Master

Autore: Valentina Mecca Contatta »

Composta da 73 pagine.


Questa tesi ha raggiunto 115 click dal 01/08/2013.

Disponibile in PDF, la consultazione è esclusivamente in formato digitale.