“War Theories” Training Session 7 Jan 2014

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Michael Lacewing Can war be just? Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Advertisements

Just War: Along side Pacifism and Realism, Just War theory represents one of the three main moral responses to the issue of war. Just War theory has developed.
Just War Theory.
Just War Theory.
Justice in Action: Just War Theory
“Peace Theories” and “How to be a Good Wing” -Nick’s rambling about stuff Training Session 25 Apr 2014.
War and Violence. Violence as a Process Definitive of the “State” Distinction between “jus ad bellum” – justice of war and “jus in bello” – justice in.
The Ethics of War Spring Main normative questions When, if ever, is resort to war justified? What can we permissibly do in war? Who are responsible.
WALZER CHAPTER 4: “LAW AND ORDER IN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY” What, if anything, morally justifies war? What is the relation between international law and.
SECURITY: WAR & TERRORISM Victor Finkel. CONCEPTS.
“War Theories” Training Session 2 May 2014
Topics in Moral and Political Philosophy War. Justice in war Jus in bello principles: concern the justice of conduct within war (which types of weapons.
1 I I Is Pre-Emptive War Wrong?. 2 Phillips’ Central Claim On the principle that just war requires both justice in going to war (jus ad bellum) and justice.
Lesson Objectives To know about weapons of mass destruction
Journal 5: Just War? MLA Format 350 Words or More.
BY CHARLES ARMITAGE, LIAM HOLOHAN AND RUAN TELFER WAR AND PEACE: KANTIAN ETHICS.
Reasoning on the morality of nuclear welfare: an introduction December 20th 2005 Luciana Garbayo.
The Ethics of War 2.forelesning.
Realism and Pacifism.
20 th Century American History. War: A Definition  Noun  A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation;
© Michael Lacewing Can war be just? Michael Lacewing
Just War Theory Unit #7: The Cold War Essential Question: Was the Cold War a just war?
Ronald F. White, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy College of Mount St. Joseph.
Military Ethics in the New Millennium
PHIL 104 (STOLZE) Notes on Heather Widdows, Global Ethics: An Introduction, chapter 8.
“Intro to Debating International Relations” Training Session 19 Nov 2014.
Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.
International Section | Leadership & Management Division | College of Management and Technology 31. Just War Theory SLP(E) Course.
1 Applied Ethics Section 6 Ethics of War. 2 Is Ethics Applicable to Warfare? Some reject the applicability of ethics to wars, citing the adage ‘All’s.
Philosophy 220 The Moral Status of War.
X_UTgc5vQY X_UTgc5vQY.
Lesson Aim To consider some examples of war To learn about the Just War Theory.
Notes on Harry van der Linden, “Barack Obama, Resort to Force, and U.S. Military Hegemony” (2009)
Just War When is war the answer?.
Christopher Jay Department of Philosophy University of York.
I will know about the 3 parts of the Just War Theory – Jus ad bellum, Jus in bello, Just post bellum Hmk: Evaluate Just War Theory.
Justice in Action: Just War Theory Just War Theory   Jus ad bellum: proposals to justify the use of force in a particular type of situation   Jus.
Justice in Action: Just War Theory PHI 2604 January 25, 2016.
Current Events actress-kate-del-castillo-el-chapo/index.html actress-kate-del-castillo-el-chapo/index.html.
Justice in Action: Just War Theory. Just War Theory Jus ad bellum: proposals to justify the use of force in a particular type of situation Jus in bello:
ALL (E GRADE): Will be able to define what a ‘Just War’ and ‘Holy War’ are and list two criteria for a Just War MOST (C GRADE): Will be able to explain.
DEBATING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Training Session
Chapter 19: Violence, Terrorism and War Violence: Background and Statistics ◦ Defining violence ◦ Violence in the movies and media Terrorism: Background.
Christian Beliefs about Just War,. To be a just war the war must meet certain criteria; 1.LAST RESORT A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All.
Chapter 8 War and Strife. Security Issues Global trends, see: –Human security.
Conceptual Overview. Jus ad Bellum (start) Jus in Bello (middle) Jus post Bellum (end)
University of Colorado – Denver
“War is a necessary evil!” “War can never be justified!”
This is Why you can’t just blow stuff up.
Write a definition for the word
List some good reasons for a country to go to war.
Describe the Christian teaching on war (8)
Just War or the Ethics of War
THE JUST WAR THEORY.
War and Peace.
Nuclear weapons and Just War
War - Recap Utilitarianism Kant Virtue Ethics.
Just War Theory. Just War Theory JWT is not Pacifism Pacifism says that war is always unjust, and therefore always wrong. This is an absolute statement.
On your whiteboard: How much can you remember about war and peace?
LO: Analyse the JWT and explain your own view on war
War and Violence Can war be just?.
UNIT FOUR| DEFENSE & SECURITY
JUST WAR.
Key words on Peace and Justice
Justice in Action: Just War Theory

JUST WAR.
Just War Principles 1. Last Resort
Presentation transcript:

“War Theories” Training Session 7 Jan 2014 The core, and controversial, proposition of just war theory is that, sometimes, states can have moral justification for resorting to armed force. War is sometimes, but of course not all the time, morally right. The idea here is not that the war in question is merely politically shrewd, or prudent, or bold and daring, but fully moral, just. It is an ethically appropriate use of mass political violence. Realism, by contrast, sports a profound skepticism about the application of moral concepts, such as justice, to the key problems of foreign policy. Power and national security, realists claim, motivate states during wartime and thus moral appeals are strictly wishful thinking. Talk of the morality of warfare is pure bunk: ethics has got nothing to do with the rough-and-tumble world of global politics, where only the strong and cunning survive. A country should tend to its vital interests in security, influence over others, and economic growth—and not to moral ideals. Pacifism does not share realism's moral skepticism. For the pacifist, moral concepts can indeed be applied fruitfully to international affairs. It does make sense to ask whether a war is just: that is an important and meaningful issue. But the result of such normative application, in the case of war, is always that war should not be undertaken. Where just war theory is sometimes permissive with regard to war, pacifism isalways prohibitive. For the pacifist, war is always wrong; there's always some better resolution to the problem than fighting. Training Session 7 Jan 2014

Just War Theory (i) “Jus ad bellum” - Right to go to War 1. Just Cause 2. Last Resort 3. Declared by Legitimate Authority 4. Right Intention 5. Reasonable Chance of Success 6. End Proportional to Means Just Cause: Commonly agree responding to acts of open aggression. But how draw the line? Invasion – Insult – Trade Embargo? Reactive or Pre-emptive? RP2P. Greater effect vs conjecture? Slippery Slope? Self-defence from external attack; the defence of others from such; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; and punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected. Just war in terms of self-defence or in defence of another. Int. Law (Roth)– legit gov (should be left in peace) (i)Recognised as legit by own people and int. community; (ii)State avoids violating rights of other legit states (iii)states makes every reasonable effort to satisfy HR of its people. Last resort: Should they try all other options first? Right Intention; oil etc. Justifiable, resentment etc?

Just War Theory (ii) “Jus in bello” – Right conduct within War Discrimination Who are legitimate targets of war? Proportionality How much force is appropriate? Responsibility Maintaining responsibility amongst soldiers Why are soldiers legitimate targets? Volunteerism. Threat to invader. Soldiers at home? In Civilian gear? Civilians who shelter fighters? Human shields, willing or not? Collective Responsibility for actions of government? Financiers of war? Proportionality – Avoid escalation; Minimise necessary suffering. Probably a good thing that India/Pakistan conflict does not escalate every time there is a dispute. Is Israel's’ response to Rocket attacks proportional? What is proportional? Where does assassination sit here? Aim: discourage retaliatory tit for tat and escalation.

Just War Theory (iii) “Jus post bellum” Compensation Rehabilitation Punishment Rebuilding in Iraq Resentment left in Germany after WWI Why are these things important? Punishment – what is the best way of doing these things? JWT – says we should hold anyone who commits atrocities responsible from both sides (this often does not happen under SQ). See US protecting people who enacted torture.

Realism Moral concepts should not be employed neither as descriptions of, nor as prescriptions for, state behaviour on the int. scene. War ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest; and that, once war has begun, a state ought to do whatever it can to win. Descriptive realism = States do not (for reasons of motivation) and cannot (for reasons of competitive struggle) behave morally Prescriptive realism = States ought to behave amorally in the int. arena the reason why a prescriptive realist might endorse such rules would be very different from the reasons offered by the just war theorist: the latter would talk about abiding moral values whereas the former would refer to useful rules which help establish expectations of behaviour, solve coordination problems and to which prudent bargainers would consent.

Pacifism Jenny Teichman: “anti-war-ism” Two kinds to consider: (1) A more consequentialist form of pacifism which maintains that the benefits accruing from war can never outweigh the costs of fighting it; And (2) a more deontological form of pacifism which contends that the very activity of war is intrinsically wrong, since it violates foremost duties of justice, such as not killing human beings. A pacifist objects to killing in general and, in particular, objects to the mass killing, for political reasons, which is part and parcel of the wartime experience. So, a pacifist rejects war; they believe that there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war.  Objection 1: Not realistic/possible Objection 2: Failing to resist int. aggression with effective means, ends up rewarding aggression and failing to protect those who need it. Response 2: We do not need to resort to war to do these things. Diplomacy and sanctions equally/more effective What are the alt.? Why might they be better (even if they haven’t worked so far)?

Consequentialism “The ends justify the means” It does not matter what actions we take in terms of their morality as long as they have the consequences we want.

Golden Arches Peace Theory No two countries with McDonalds in them will go to war -Level of Economic Development; Middle Class to support McDonald’s Network -Symbol of economic interdependence Statistically speaking seemed to work pretty well! Fails: NATO/Serbia (2005) India/Pakistan (Kashmir 1998) Israel/Lebanon (2006) Georgia/Russia (2008)

Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention “No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.” Nations are unwilling to risk the employment generated by globalization, and don’t fight. Use to argue why economic ties are a positive; e.g. in sanctions debates Examples: India/Pakistan Nuclear Standoff Taiwan/China ?

Democratic Peace Theory Democracies almost never fight with each other – lack of any real wars between real democracies in 20th C -Normative Reasons -Structural Reasons Argue that promoting democracy has broader benefits to protecting the security of existing democratic nations (democratic crusade) Other explanations; e.g. political similarity Just a matter of time Promoting democracy can backfire – increase conflict

Debating about Invasions / Assassinations etc PROP OPP Establish Imperative Identify a tipping point (why we can’t wait) Last Resort (all other options have been tried) Provide clear mechanism Outline a military strategy that will work Initial conflict Continuing conflict (insurgency?) Include amnesty option for combatants / suggest won’t fight Show path to a better future Reconstruction efforts? Who will take power afterwards? Creates important positive precedents Throw mess around War is never clean or simple Civilians & Soldiers will die Responsibility on our hands Show how will mobilise opposition EVEN IF invasion works Show most likely scenario will be at best sub-optimal and most likely even worse than to start Undermines precedents of international law THB political assassinations are a legitimate tool of foreign policy