question:领导如果对我有隐瞒，我对我的不信任吗

question:如果领导不给给我晋升，总是让我沉淀

question:Define the Jus in Bello principle of proportionality (not the Jus Ad Bellum principle of proportionality) using the notes provided: 4. THE PRINCIPLES OF JUS IN BELLO – PROPORTIONALITY AND DISCRIMINATION 1. Proportionality - The projected benefits of a specific military campaign, battle or operation must be significantly greater than the projected costs. Note a. The Principle of Proportionality rules out the use of excessive force (for example, carpet bombing an entire village because a few enemy snipers are hiding there and shooting at your troops; a major attack on a large military base or installation that is about to surrender; sustained aerial bombardment of a relatively unimportant munitions factory located in a densely populated civilian area). b. That being said, the use of overwhelming force is not always ruled out by the Principle of Proportionality because in some circumstances, it may actually save a significant number of lives and limit damage to infrastructure and the environment. The following rules of thumb for use by military commanders can be derived from the Principle of Proportionality - • Identify ALL the available options and choose the one that is projected/likely to cause the least harm and destruction while still achieving the legitimate military objective. • If the best available option will, in all likelihood, cause excessive loss of life and damage to infrastructure and the environment, desist from attacking the target or defending whatever land/position one is holding. 2. Principle of Discrimination (Henceforth POD) - ALL belligerent parties involved in war are bound by a strict moral obligation to discriminate between the enemy’s armed forces and its civilian population. Lethal violence can be used against the former but not the latter. POD is sometimes referred to as “The Principle of Non-Combatant Immunity.” Issue/Problem – Some civilians are directly involved in the war effort. There are civilians (politicians), for instance, who plan and initiate wars of aggression. Other civilians work in war industries that produce the instruments of death and destruction. If they are making a direct contribution to the war effort, why should these civilians be immune, on moral grounds, from attack? Possible Solution - Reformulate POD in the following way: “…are bound by a strict moral obligation to discriminate between an enemy’s armed forces and morally innocent enemy civilians (in other words, civilians who do not make a direct contribution to the war effort). Examples - 1. Civilians who work in war industries can be legitimately targeted. 2. Civilians who work on a dairy farm that supplies mainly other civilians with dairy products cannot be targeted on the grounds that members of the opposing military sometimes consume milk and cheese produced by the civilians who work on the farm. Questions – a. Is the distinction between a direct and an indirect contribution to the war effort unacceptably imprecise? b. What if civilians are making a direct contribution unwillingly? (Examples: their despotic, oppressive government forces them to work in war industries; combatants operating from within densely populated areas coerce civilians to fight or use them as “human shields”). c. And what about combatants who are forced to fight for a cause they do not themselves believe in? Regarding (b) - Require combatants to warn civilians of an impending attack so they have time to evacuate. Notice, however, that this will work only if there are effective means of warning civilians and the area is not so densely populated that timely evacuation is highly improbable. Note POD also raises the issue of what counts as a legitimate military target (totalitarian/authoritarian political leaders? Government institutions where decisions about the war are made? A factory that manufactures food – 70 percent going to the military, 30 percent to innocent civilians?). 5. “COLLATERAL DAMAGE” AND THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT  How do we interpret the Principle of Discrimination in the context of modern warfare? a. We insist the principle is absolute – killing or injuring civilians in war is always wrong and impermissible. But what seems to follow from this absolutist interpretation is the conclusion that modern warfare is in practice always immoral (because as we have seen, modern warfare invariably kills or does serious harm to morally innocent civilians). If this is the case, then pacifism may be the only defensible philosophical position about war. b. The other option is to modify the principle in such a way as to allow for what is commonly known as “collateral damage.” But ‘collateral damage’ is shorthand for the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). The conditions constitutive of this doctrine are stringent and cannot easily be satisfied. Whether or not DDE will allow a proponent of JWT to avoid the conclusion that modern warfare is in practice always immoral is therefore unclear. According to DDE, it is morally permissible for a rational agent to bring about some objectionable state of affairs (such as the death of innocent civilians in war) if and only if that state of affairs is a merely foreseen secondary effect of pursuing a morally worthy objective (such as the destruction of a high value military target). For this to be the case, certain conditions specified by DDE must be satisfied – 1. The agent’s intended final end must be morally worthy. 2. The intended means to the final end must be morally permissible. 3. The morally worthy end must be proportionate to the morally objectionable secondary effect. 4. The morally objectionable secondary effect must not be one of the agent’s ends, nor can it be a means to his ends (this condition rules out the intentional targeting of civilians for political or other purposes). Question - Are the preceding conditions likely to be satisfied in a highly stressful, life threatening situation such as armed combat? 6. TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES RAISED BY FOTION a. Does JWT need to be modified (or even abolished) in light of the character of modern warfare? Recall the following passage from my lecture on the Impact of Modern Warfare on Civilian Populations: “…in her 2001 book titled Old and New Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (Stanford University Press, p.100), Mary Kaldor reports that by the end of the 20th Century, civilian casualties accounted for eighty percent of combat related deaths.” b. Today, there are a significant number of armed conflicts between nation-states and sub-national groups. Does JWT need to be modified in light of this fact?