The Problem of War | Interim 2012  

Class Notes (class schedule)

1/26 It is hard to believe that today is our last day of class. Last night you watched the film, Munich, and today we will discuss some very difficult, but very relevant questions about targeted killings (also referred to as extrajudicial killings or assasinations) and how in bello limitations should apply to conflicts in which drone warfare is becoming commonplace. We begin by thinking critically about Munich, asking whether the film presented the Israeli's predicament and response in an appropriate way. We also need to ask how Realists, Idealists/Constructivists, and Just War thinkers would respond to the Israeli policy of reprisal. Of course the elephant in the room is whether Munich parallels the continuing military response to terrorism waged by the United States. We will take a close look at Harold Koh's speech and talk about the Obama administration's policies regarding extrajudicial killings and drone warfare. Let me also remind you that the final exam is not easy! You will need to be very familiar with the material of the course AND you will need to be able to think about that material analytically. We will be trying to test both comprehension and critical thinking.You should also think carefully about answers you would provide for all three essay questions.

1/25 Today we discuss Walzer's chapters 18 and 19 on "The Quesiton of Responsibility." We begin by returning to one of our earliest questions about whetherit is even appropriate to talk about praiseworthy and blameworthy acts in the context of war. Walzer distinguishes between legality and morality and insists that we have a right (and even a duty) to make judgments about those who act in wartime. In order to understand the nuances of judgment however, we need to grasp Gray's Principle, the distinction between the duties of a civilian and a soldier, the in bello responsibilities of soldiers, the possibility of mitigating circumstances, the special responsibility of commanders, and the very difficult issue of "dirty hands." We also should want to make sure that everyone can list the three ad bellum criteria as well as the two in bello criteria that are most often invoked in the context of war.

1/24 Our fifth TIWET. The question before the Tribunal is whether the British were justified in targeting civilian populations in their bombing campaigns from 1942-1945. The Prosecution was down to three members, but was nonetheless able to cast doubt on the justification of "supreme ermergency" that the Defense articulated. Under the distinguished leadership of Speaker Gabriel Trejos, the Tribunal ruled 30/7/2 that the British were not justified in targeting civilians during this time period. The discussion was thoughtful and wonderfully contentious - very distinct and conflicting views were articulated with passion and civility. The crucial issue involved what "supreme emergency" entails and to what extent it should be recognized as a valid exception to other just war principles, such as double effect.Also a review sheet for the final has been posted. It is time to start thinking about the end!

1/23 We now turn to the work of John Rawls who, toward the end of his life, sought to apply his influential contract theory to international law. The result is "The Law of Peoples," an article published in 1993 and then expanded into a book in 1999. It should be clear from this article that Rawls is working in the wake of Kant. (If you read closely, you might even notice that Rawls at times seems to follow the structure of Kant's argument in Perpetual Peace. Just as Kant wanted to articulate universal claims, Rawls wants to articulate acceptable principles that can not only be defended logically but used as a standard by which to judge contemporary practice. The difference between Kant and Rawls, however, is that Rawls would like to place the principle of toleration at the very center of his thought and avoid the seeming exclusivity of Kant's claim that peace requires republican government. In contrast, Rawls articulates a "law of peoples" that embraces toleration, even toleration for nonliberal societies, or in his words, "a conception of the law of peoples universal in its reach and applicable to nonliberal societies" (55). In order to understand Rawls, we need to understand some of his terminology - "political not metaphysical,"  "liberal conception of justice," "constructivist social contract doctrine,""law of peoples vs. law of nations," "well-ordered hierarchical state." Although they differ in significant ways, the questions we pose Rawls are similar to those we posed Kant. Is his position reasonable? Is it practical? Is it applicable?

1/20 Today we discuss the Battle of Algiers. In this film we come face to face with some of the most difficult dilemmas of modern, asymmetric warfare. Although the film is set in Algeria in the 1950s, the moral and ethical issues presented here are eerily contemporary. We are introduced to a group of Algerian nationalists who want to drive out the French occupation at any cost. The French (who see themselves as a force of liberty, equality and fraternity) must confront an enemy that seeks their own liberation and is willing to employ violence against civilians to gain it. In an effort to prevent further carnage, the French resort to secret bombings and torture. After discussing the film, we turned to review some of the most important concepts in the course so far - the war convention, noncombatant immunity, military necessity. One of the most difficult and most important task in contemporary assymetic warfare is distinguising between combatant and noncombatant. Along the way we mentioned an interview with the Human Rights Watch analyst who worked with the Pentagon planning the bombing during the Iraq War in 2003. You can hear a fascinating interview with this analyst, Marc Garlasco, here. The question of civilian deaths in the Iraq War and its aftermath is, of course, a contentious one. You can listen to a "This American Life" episode dedicated to the debate over Iraqi deaths here. It is important to note that American forces sought to minimize civilian casualties, but it is also undeniable that Iraqi civilians died in the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

1/19 The fourth TIWET. Today the Tribunal must decide whether the siege of Leningrad between 1941-1943 was justified given the larger war aims of both Germany and the Soviet Union. In order to answer this question, the men and women of the Tribunal must think through the in bello limitations on blockades. What criteria, if any, would have to be met for such a blockade to be a justified tactic in the midst of war? As it turned out, the question of whether the civilians in Leningrad became part of the war effort (and thus lost their privilegednon-combatant status) or maintained their non-combatant status because they had no avenue of escape. Under the speakership of Raffaele Triggiano, the Tribunal decided 25/4/6 in favor of the Prosecution. Several individuals of the Tribunal objected to the wording of the question under deliberation, arguing that there was too much ambiguity in the statement to give them confidence to make a clear judgment. In short, we had a good discussion about the important (and surprisingly contemporary) issue of seiges and blockades. Prof. Lott mentioned the Iraqi city of Haditha, which was the site of controversial death of 15 Iraqi civilians. Go to this PBS Frontline site to learn more about the Haditha incident and its aftermath.

1/18 Today we celebrate MLK and his pedecessors. I know, I know - it's a few days late. Yet as King himself put it, "The time is always right to do what is right." But what, exactly, is right? That is, what responsibility do we have to resist the type of violence that seems to characterize the modern state? What duties, according to Thoreau, do individuals have when faced with what he describes as the massive and anonymous machinery of society? What needs to happen in order for progress to take place? Both Gandhi and King cite Thoreau as an inspiration. What do they share with this earlier thinker? In what ways do they depart from his position? The most important question, however, is to what extent these individuals help us to better understand the problem of war. To what extent (and in what fashion) should we apply the principles of Thoreau, Gandhi, or King to contemporary international affairs?

1/17 Our third TIWET. The men and women of the tribunal listened attentively as the Prosecution sought to convince them that German Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz was morally culpable in issuing the "Laconia Order," an order which seemed to violate traditional norms of naval warfare. The Defense responded that, in this particular case, military necessity made such an order not only explicable but also justifiable. The concepts of "double effect" and "noncombatant immunity" were central to this case. Speaker Brian Wells guided the Tribunal in discussion, and the result was a close 18/14 ruling in favor of the Defense, rejecting the Prosecution's claim that Admiral Dönitz was morally culpable. (If anyone is counting, that means that the Tribunal has ruled in favor of the Defense in all three of its trials).

1/16 Today we turned our attention to 20th century realism. Prof. Lott lectured on realism as a school of thought in international relations and focused on Hans Morgenthau as an exemplar of this school. We discussed our reading from Morgenthau's class text, Politics Among Nations. Prof. Casson then lectured on Reinhold Niebuhr's form of "Christian realism," pointing out both similarities and differences with Morgenthau.If you are interested in learning more about contemporary incarnations of realism, you might want to take a look at a recent article on John Mearsheimer who, in some ways, in Morgenthau's heir at the University of Chicago. If you are interested in Reinhold Niebuhr, check out Krista Tibbet's wonderful collection of interviews for American Public Media.

1/12 Our second TIWET. The tribunal heard arguments concerning whether NATO intervention in Kosovo was morally justified. We discussed what justifies humanitarian intervention, and then attempted to apply those principles to the specific case of Kosovo in 1999. After an interesting and thoughtful trial, the tribunal discussed the criteria that would justify humanitarian intervention and in bello and ad bellum considerations. The final judgment? Speaker Weston Birnbaum led the Tribunal to a 34/1/1 decision in favor of the Defense, rejecting the Prosecution's claim that NATO is morally culpable for intervening in Kosovo in 1999.

1/11 Today we tried to tackle Kant's essay, "Perpetual Peace." We discussed how Kant shares with Hobbes an understanding of the state of nature and the importance of political institutions to escape that state, yet he differs in his belief that human beings have a duty to escape the state of nature that exists between nations as well. The treaty that Kant proposes aims at ending war permanently and requires certain preliminary steps to "wind down" hostilities as well as definitive articles to eliminate war. What guarantees compliance to this unprecedented treaty? Kant tells us that history itself is the guarantee of peace. Individuals either freedly choose the path of progress by recognizing their own duties or they are drawn unwittingly toward peace by the logic of history. The violence that we have experienced teaches us, slowly but inevitably, to seek other non-violent means to achieve our ends. Still unconvinced? Harvard Professor Steven Pinker has recently written an interesting book in which he offers an argument (and some empirical evidence) to support Kant's thesis. Here is Prof. Pinker talking about his book and here he is discussing Kant.

1/10 We divided into small groups in order to discuss our excerpts from Machiavelli's Prince and Discourses and Hobbes' Leviathan. We began by reviewing how Augustine and Aquinas attempted to address the inescapable violence of the world without rejecting the moral teachings of the New Testament. The complex tradition of Just War thinking grows out of this struggle. Machiavelli, however, declares that his project is quite different. In order to learn to be "useful" or "effective," the prince must learn to set aside the morality that is appropriate to "imagined principalities" and act in a way that conforms to reality. Hobbes, writing much later, explains politics in terms of material facts. Humans seek the means to pursue their interests. The competititon, diffidence (uncertainty), and glory-seeking that results creates a natural state of war in which their is no meaningful way to speak of justice. The only escape from the state of nature is the establishment of the leviathan.

1/9 Today we held our first TIWET, debating whether the Israelis were justified in preemptively attacking Egypt in 1967. Both the Prosecution and Defense submitted thoughtful, articulate, and well-researched briefs and then presented their arguments with clarity and confidence. After the Trial the Tribunal, led by Speaker Mirwais Wakil, deliberated for almost thirty minutes. In spite of persuasive arguments offered for both sides, the Tribunal finally decided 36/4 for the Defense, ruling that Israel was not ethically culpable for preemptively attacking Egypt in 1967. If you want to learn more about this conflict, take a look at this archival footage of the Six Day War and this interview with Michael Walzer (available thanks to the new Films on Demand database recently purchased by the library).

1/5 Today we broke into small groups to discuss The Mission in the context of our readings. We asked: Does the Christian Gospel call its readers to reject all worldly violence or just some types of violence? How have Christian thinkers, such as Origin, Augustine, Aquinas, and Vitoria sought to make sense of scriptural mandates? For Aquinas what three criteria justify engaging in war? Remember that our first TIWET is Monday!

1/4 Today we discussed the Thucydides and the beginning of Walzer. Prof. Casson introduced Thucydides (his uninspired powerpoint is here). We then discussed the Melian Conference and even put the Athenians on trial (sort of). Finally Prof. Lott led a discussion of the first three chapters of Walzer, emphasizing the notions of "moral reality" and "in bello" and "ad bellum" distinctions contained in our shared moral language or "war conventions." Tonight at 7pm in Holland 501 we watch The Mission. And tomorrow the first batch of response papers are due.

1/3 Welcome to our class website. Your daily reading assignments are listed on our class syllabus. You will also be able to find supplemental readings linked to the assignments on the syllabus. The readings are password protected. If you prefer, you will also be able to download a syllabus and our supplemental readings on our class moodle site.