- What do we know about the origins of the protagonist? What is his name and what does his name suggest?
- What about the first bosses? How does his life change?
- Thomas meets a captain, and his life changes course again. How? What does the narrative tell us from the outset about the difference between what the captain tells and the reality of life as a soldier?
- What happens to Thomas in Italy?
- Thomas returns to Salamanca to finish his studies. But what happens there? What is the effect of the spell?
- Thomas’s friends try to help him, but in the end they let him “go free”. What happens to Thomas then? How does he speak, what things does he say?
- Towards the end of the novel, a religious cures Thomas of his madness. What happens to Thomas now (notice the name change) in court?
- What does Thomas say about the Court? Where does he go in the end? (theme of weapons and letters)
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, sho>GET ANSWER