本文從分析性的義戰理論視野，論證利比亞戰爭在「正義的戰爭目 的」這一層面上的道德短缺。美英法領袖以保護平民、制止人道災難作 爲發動戰爭的主要理由；他們也明白表示軍事行動是爲了推翻格達費政 權，促進利比亞的民主化。因此，利比亞戰爭同時涉及「人道干預」和 「政體改造」這兩項課題。本文分析指出：第一，利比亞戰爭稱不上是 人道干預，因其未能滿足人道干預原則的基本規定。按人道干預原則， 唯有當極嚴重的人道災難發生時，人道干預才得成爲正義的戰爭目的 ——但這並不適用於戰爭前夕的利比亞。第二，在某些極特殊的情況 下，政體改造也許是道德上可允許的戰爭目的——但這同樣不適用於利 比亞。從義戰道德視野，吾人有理由對政體改造戰爭持審慎保留的態度， 反對其動輒上綱。

In March 2011, NATO launched the Libyan war in the name of protecting civilians and preventing an impending humanitarian disaster, while at the same time pointing to the necessity of “regime change.” Did, then, there exist a just cause for war in the case of Libya in March 2011? This paper advances two lines of argument against the Libyan war, especially in relation to the “just cause” requirement of the morality of just war. The first, through a critical exposition of the “principle of humanitarian intervention,” argues that the Libya war should not be regarded as a humanitarian intervention in any real sense. Nor, therefore, could this war be justified in such terms. The second, dealing with normative issues concerning regime change and drawing on Michael Walzer and John Rawls, contends that regime change might be a morally permissible cause for war only in extreme cases.On this view, the Libyan war as a regime change operation is not morally acceptable.Regime change did not constitute a just cause for the Libyan war, even if the latter did indeed aim for regime change. The presence of a just cause does not in itself determine whether or not a war is fully just. But a war without a just cause must necessarily be morally deficient. To put it rather more strongly, such a war is morally unjustifiable insofar as just war theory, or a defensible account of it, is concerned.