Advanced

Kan Guantanamo Bay rättfärdigas?

Niskanen, Jenny LU (2010) STVK01 20101
Department of Political Science
Abstract
This bachelor thesis contains the justification of Guantanamo Bay. How the U.S.A has justified Guantanamo Bay and how the Human Rights Watch has rejected U.S.A's arguments. This study about Human Rights Watch's and U.S.A's argumentation regarding Guantanamo Bay, has been reconstructed and interconnected with ethical perspectives as rule-based action, end-based action and the problem of dirty hands.
After the reconstruction of the validity in the argumentations, both reasonability and sustainability have been tested to see if the U.S.A's and the HRW’s argumentations are honest argumentations.
With help from the normative study, values as individual rights and homeland security appears. They are set against each other to see which of them... (More)
This bachelor thesis contains the justification of Guantanamo Bay. How the U.S.A has justified Guantanamo Bay and how the Human Rights Watch has rejected U.S.A's arguments. This study about Human Rights Watch's and U.S.A's argumentation regarding Guantanamo Bay, has been reconstructed and interconnected with ethical perspectives as rule-based action, end-based action and the problem of dirty hands.
After the reconstruction of the validity in the argumentations, both reasonability and sustainability have been tested to see if the U.S.A's and the HRW’s argumentations are honest argumentations.
With help from the normative study, values as individual rights and homeland security appears. They are set against each other to see which of them that stands highest. Values as democracy, equality and non violence will also appear.
The study shows that it will always depend on the situation. Neither individual rights nor homeland security can be higher than the other, both values are equally necessary.
The U.S.A's argumentation is not an honest argumentation and it affects the results of the justification of Guantanamo Bay. On the other hand the HRW's argumentation is an honest argumentation. The result of this is that the USA justification of Guantanamo Bay is not defensible (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Niskanen, Jenny LU
supervisor
organization
course
STVK01 20101
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Human Rights Watch, USA, Guantanamo Bay, Militär order, rättfärdigande
language
Swedish
id
1608130
date added to LUP
2010-06-29 13:06:08
date last changed
2010-06-29 13:06:08
@misc{1608130,
  abstract     = {This bachelor thesis contains the justification of Guantanamo Bay. How the U.S.A has justified Guantanamo Bay and how the Human Rights Watch has rejected U.S.A's arguments. This study about Human Rights Watch's and U.S.A's argumentation regarding Guantanamo Bay, has been reconstructed and interconnected with ethical perspectives as rule-based action, end-based action and the problem of dirty hands. 
After the reconstruction of the validity in the argumentations, both reasonability and sustainability have been tested to see if the U.S.A's and the HRW’s argumentations are honest argumentations.
With help from the normative study, values as individual rights and homeland security appears. They are set against each other to see which of them that stands highest. Values as democracy, equality and non violence will also appear.
The study shows that it will always depend on the situation. Neither individual rights nor homeland security can be higher than the other, both values are equally necessary. 
The U.S.A's argumentation is not an honest argumentation and it affects the results of the justification of Guantanamo Bay. On the other hand the HRW's argumentation is an honest argumentation. The result of this is that the USA justification of Guantanamo Bay is not defensible},
  author       = {Niskanen, Jenny},
  keyword      = {Human Rights Watch,USA,Guantanamo Bay,Militär order,rättfärdigande},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Kan Guantanamo Bay rättfärdigas?},
  year         = {2010},
}