The tenability gap: A study of Just War Theory and intervention justifications in Syria.

Abstract: Moral and ethical considerations have always been important in discussions about warfare and the development of the international community and body of international humanitarian law, laws whose fundamental ethics that can be attributed to Just War Theory. With the changing nature of conflicts and due to the lack of internationally declared principles of just and unjust wars, this thesis argues that there is a gap which creates difficulties in the justifications of contemporary conflicts. The aim of this study is to describe, explain and analyze the flawed tenability between the classic Just War Theory and its implementation in actual conflict justifications. In order to do so, the study conducts an argumentation analysis on France, the USA, and Russia's justifications for their involvement in the Syrian conflict to identify the argued data, warrants, claim, qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing. Afterward, the premisses of the justifications are related to the theoretical background to identify what it is that creates the lacking conformity. The key finding of the study is that it is the different designs of the justifications that create the gap. Hence, the difference of basing ones’ justification on generally accepted warrants or allowing the warrants to establish themselves by the logic link between the data and claim. Due to this difference in the argumentations, the thesis argues that there needs to be a separation between legitimate justifications and lawful justification.