The Problem of War | Interim 2012  

Class Schedule (class notes)

1-3
Introduction: Why War is a Problem

1-4
A Tradition of Debate
Thucydides, ‘The Melian Dialogue’
Walzer 1,2, & 3

1. In what ways do the Athenians and Melians appeal to morality? In what ways do they appeal to power? What happens to justice in the Melian Dialogue?

2. Walzer writes, ‘It would be very odd to praise Rommel for not killing prisoners unless we simultaneously refused to blame him for Hitler’s aggressive wars.’ Why does he make this claim? Do you agree with Walzer that ‘political obedience’ is an important factor in determining moral culpability?

FILM: The Mission, Holland 501, 7pm

1-5
Christian Pacifism and Just War Traditions (SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION – Defense Attorneys 1PM, Prosecution 2PM)
Matthew 5 and Romans 13, Origin, Excerpt from Contra Celsum, Augustine, Excerpts from City of God XIX.7, 11-13, Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II q 40

Response Papers for Tribunal V defense members

1. What three things are necessary for a war to be just for Aquinas? In what way does Aquinas continue a tradition of thinking found in Augustine?

2. Is Just War thinking a departure from the original Christian teachings like the Sermon on the Mount? Why or why not?

Discussion of The Mission
Vitoria, Letter to Miguel de Arcos, Excerpts from On the Indians

Response Papers for Tribunal V prosecution

How would Vitoria characterize the responsibilities owed to the Guarani by the colonists?  What is the source of these responsibilities?

1-6
No Class

1-9
Tribunal I “Anticipations, Preemption, and the Six Day War”
Walzer 4&5

Response Papers for Tribunal IV defense members

1. In chapter 4, Walzer places aggression at the center of his discussion of the war convention. Yet he also shows that defining an act of aggression can be tricky. What criteria does Walzer provide for determining an aggressor? Do you agree with his interpretation of the case of Alsace-Lorraine? Do you agree with his overarching criteria? Why or why not?

2. Walzer insists that individuals and states can rightly defend themselves against imminent threat. Yet he distinguishes between self-defense and preventative war. What do you think about this distinction? What, if anything, justifies preemptive attack? 

1-10
Early Modern Realists and the Stubborn Fact of Power (SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION – Defense Attorneys 1PM, Prosecution 2PM)
Machiavelli, Excerpts from The Prince and The Discourses, Hobbes, Chapter XI and XIII from Leviathan

Response Papers for Tribunal IV prosecution

1. Machiavelli makes the claim that ‘war is just which is necessary’. How would he have us determine ‘what is necessary’? How does this compare to Augustine or Vitoria? Who is most persuasive and why?

2. Why do people quarrel in the state of nature for Hobbes? What makes war possible? What limits war? What is ‘justice’ in the state of nature? How would Walzer respond to Hobbes’s depiction of the state of nature?

1-11
An Idealist’s Response (SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION – Defense Attorneys 1PM, Prosecution 2PM)
Kant, Perpetual Peace (with appendices)

Response Papers for Tribunal III defense

1. Does Kant believe the articles of a Perpetual Peace are practical? Do you? What is he attempting to do by writing these articles? How does this relate to his reference to a graveyard?

2. Why does Kant think that morality and politics are not in opposition? Why is transparency in political acts so necessary in a world conducive to peace? Do you agree with his assessment of morality and politics?

1-12
Tribunal II “Humanitarian Intervention and Kosovo, 1999”
Walzer 6

Response Papers for Tribunal III prosecution

1. Why does Mill contend that, given what liberty is, interventions necessarily fail to uphold liberty?  Why does Walzer contend that prudence and justice might be used to understand the mixed-motives of intervention?

1-13
No Class

1-16
The Lingering Fact of Power
Morgenthau, Excerpts from Politics Among Nations, Niebuhr, “Why Christianity is not Pacifist”
Walzer, Chapter 7

Response Papers for Tribunal II defense

1. What specific views do Morgenthau and Niebuhr share when addressing morality in international relations?

2. Does their view of morality differ from what Walzer argues when defending the importance of winning?

1-17
Tribunal III “Noncombatant Immunity, Military Necessity, and the Laconia Affair”
Walzer 8 & 9

Response Papers for Tribunal II prosecution

1. What is ‘double effect’? Why is a utilitarian defense of killing non-combatants inadequate for Walzer? Is his rights-based approach sufficient to overcome the ambiguity of double effect?

1-18
Modern Responses to Violence (SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION – Defense Attorneys 1PM, Prosecution 2PM)
Thoreau, “On Civil Disobedience," Gandhi, “The Secret of Satyagraha” and “My Faith in Nonviolence,”MLK, Jr. “My Pilgrimage to Nonviolence”
Walzer (Afterward)

Response Papers for Tribunal I defense

1. Thoreau argues that the modern war-making state is a threat to individual freedom. What are his reasons for making this claim? What type of government would he prefer? What does he expect from the individual citizen? Do you agree with him? Why or why not? 

2. Martin Luther King tells us that he was influenced by Thoreau and Gandhi as well as Niebuhr. How does he combine these seemingly opposed positions on violence? Do you think that MLK's vision is applicable to the problem of war? Why or why not?

1-19
Tribunal IV “Sieges, Blockades, and Leningrad”
Walzer 10

Response Papers for Tribunal I prosecution

When can a siege be justified? In what way could one interpret ‘multilateral economic sanctions’ a modern form of either a siege or a blockade? Given the fact that innocent civilians are affected, how can we determine the moral limitations on such actions?

FILM: Battle of Algiers, Holland 307, 7pm

1-20
Discussion of The Battle of Algiers
Walzer 11 & 12

Response Papers for Tribunal II defense and prosecution

1. Consider the story of the ‘potato partisans’ at the beginning of chapter 11 in Walzer. How is it that their actions are not murder? How can their actions be legally justified? Morally justified? Do you agree or disagree with Walzer and why?

2. ‘The revolutionary reveals his freedom in the same way as he earns it, by directly confronting his enemies and refraining from attacks on anyone else.’ Is this quotation from Walzer accurate or does it represent a Western moralizing that fundamentally misunderstands the practical problems of fighting in a revolutionary struggle?

1-23
Resurgence of Idealism (SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION – Defense Attorneys 1PM, Prosecution 2PM)
Rawls, “Law of Nations”

Response Papers for Tribunal III defense and prosecution

1. How does a ‘constructivist procedure’ operate according to Rawls? In what way is Rawls following Kant’s approach in Perpetual Peace?

2. How does Rawls define human rights? What roles do human rights play for Rawls? Is this similar to Walzer’s discussion of rights as a way past utilitarian thinking on the war convention?

1-24
Tribunal V “Supreme Emergency and the Bombing of German Cities”
Walzer 16

Response Papers for Tribunal I defense and prosecution

1. When can a ‘supreme emergency’ argument be justifiably offered? Why, then, does Walzer argue that Hiroshima was unjustified? What, if anything, justifies the bombing of civilian populations?

1-25
Dilemmas and Responsibilities (SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION)
Walzer 18, 19

Response Papers for Tribunal IV defense and prosecution

1. Are democratic citizens equally responsible for the actions of their state?  Does Walzer allow for sufficient differentiation of moral blame under conditions of collective responsibility?

Film: Munich, Holland 501, 7pm

1-26
Discussion of Munich
Harold Koh, "The Obama Administration and International Law" March 21 2010, and Charlie Savage, "Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen" New York Times, October 8, 2011

Response Papers for Tribunal V defense and prosecution

1. In the film, Munich, Prime Minister Golda Meir says, “Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate the compromises with its own values.” What does she mean? Do you agree with that statement? Why or why not?

2. Do you think that the Israeli counter-terrorist initiative was the correct response to the Olympic Village killings in 1972? Why or why not?

3. Take another look at Koh and Savage. Is the current US policy on targeted killings prudent? Is it morally defensible?

1-27
Reading Day

1-28
Final Exam