1. “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

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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)?

7. 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.

8. 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)

9. 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 ?

10. 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

11. 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