War & JusticePLIT10021

Course organiser:

1

Dr Claire Duncanson c.p.duncanson@ed.ac.uk

2

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE

1. Aims and ObjectivesUnder what conditions, if any, is a country morally entitled to go to war? Only to defend itself against aggression by others, or to further some of the legitimate goals of a nationally self-determining country? Is humanitarian intervention merely permissible or, in some cases, mandatory as well? Once a country is engaged in a just war, though, can its leaders do whatever it takes to shorten the war, or are they constrained by moral rules, most notably pertaining to the killing of civilians? If it is sometimes permissible to kill civilians, is it permissible to do so however one wishes, or is the use of certain kinds of weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, morally ruled out? Also, is it indeed the case that, as most would argue, there can be no possible justification for terrorism? Finally, once the war is over, how should the parties behave towards each other?

These are questions which we constantly have to reflect upon as citizens of countries which are engaged in wars we deem just, and as witnesses of wars waged by other countries. The course is meant to shed some light on some of the dilemmas raised by the conduct of war.

This course aims to: * introduce students to key ethical debates in international politics;* provide a working knowledge of theoretical approaches to the study of war.

Upon successful completion of this course students should be able to:* critically engage with contemporary debates about international justice; * identify future directions and challenges in the theory of the just war.

2. Teaching arrangementsThe course will be taught by way of a lecture and tutorial. The lectures will take place on Tuesdays at 11.10am till 12noon in Seminar Room 4, CMB.

50 minute tutorials will take place in Room 1.02 in 14 Buccleuch Place on Thursdays, at 9am, 10am and 11.10am – please sign up for a group via WebCT. In this course, there IS a tutorial in week 1, so you should sign up for a group ASAP.

The course will be taught by a team of three lecturers:

Dr Claire Duncanson (course convenor)Room 3.02, Chrystal Macmillan BuildingEmail: c.p.duncanson@ed.ac.uk Office hours: Wednesday 11.00am-1.00pm

Dr Andrea BirdsallRoom 3.02, Chrystal Macmillan Building

3

Email: A.Birdsall@ed.ac.ukOffice hours: Tuesday 09.00-11.00am

Dr Chris MacleodRoom 5.12, Chrystal Macmillan BuildingEmail: C.Macleod@ed.ac.uk Office hours: Wednesdays and Fridays 2.00-3.00pm

Lecture ScheduleWeek 1: Introduction (AB)

Case Study: Ticking Bomb Scenario

Week 2: Pacifism (AB)Case Study: Ghandi

Week 3: Jus ad bellum I: Prevention, pre-emption, self-defence (CM)Case Study: Gulf War II

Week 4: Jus ad bellum II: Humanitarian intervention (CM)Case Study: Kosovo (and Libya)

Week 5: Jus in bello I: Terrorism (CPD)Case Study: ANC

Week 6: Innovative Learning Week

Week 7: Jus in bello II: Targeted killings (CPD)Case Study: Killing of Osama Bin Laden

Week 8: Jus in bello III: Non-combatant immunity (CPD)Case Study: Hiroshima, German cities

Week 9: Jus in bello IV: Prisoners of War (AB)Case Study: Guantanamo Bay, Recap on Ticking Bomb Scenario

Week 10: Jus post bellum (AB)Case Study: My Lai massacre

Week 11: A Feminist Approach to Just War Theory (CPD)

TutorialsThis course is very much focused on student participation. Your attendance at, preparation for and participation in tutorials will count towards your final mark. The tutorials are intended to complement the lectures by giving you the opportunity to actively and critically engage with the ideas introduced in the lectures in the context of ‘hard cases.’ In preparation for each tutorial, you are expected to read background material on the case being explored, complete a list of definitions (on the key philosophical concepts in the ethics of war), and

4

prepare provisional answers to questions that relate to the core readings for the tutorial. This will require independent research on your behalf, using the internet and library to go beyond the sources listed below. A short worksheet will be posted on WebCT a week in advance, which you should print off, complete and bring along to tutorials. Your tutor will collect these sheets and, although the sheets will not be given a grade, satisfactory completion each week is required for full marks in the participation component of your mark. Every unexplained or unexcused absence and/or uncompleted worksheet will result in five marks being deducted from your participation mark.

3. Texts(NB: books marked OL are available online via Oxford Scholarship Online)a. Core texts in just war theory

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, (New York: Basic Books, 2006, 4th

edition). This book is essential for the course and it is strongly suggested you buy it.

Mark Evans, Just War Theory: A Reappraisal (Edinburgh: EUP, 2005).

A.J. Coates, The Ethics of War (Manchester University Press, 1997).

b. Just War in Classical Political Thought

R. Tuck, Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.)

K. Nabulsi, Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance and the Law (Oxford: OUP, 1999.) [OL]

c. Book-lengths treatments of the ethics of war

There is a voluminous literature on the ethics of war. The following are good, useful book-length treatments, which cover some or most of the relevant issues. You might want to read/browse through them as we go along in the course.

A. Bellamy, Just Wars (Polity Press, 2006)

I. Clark Waging War: A Philosophical Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)

5

J.T. Johnson, Morality and Contemporary Warfare (Yale University Press, 1999)

R. Norman, Ethics, Killing and War (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

D. Rodin¸ War and Self-Defense (Oxford University Press, 2002) [OL]

M. Walzer, Arguing about War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004)

d. Key concepts and issues in political philosophy (with a focus on international issues):

C. Brown, Sovereignty, rights, and justice: international political theory today (Cambridge: Polity, 2002).

C. Fabre, Justice in a Changing World (Cambridge: Polity, 2007).

K. Hutchings, International Political Theory (London: Sage, 1999).

4. JournalsStudents are expected to be familiar with the electronic journals available through the library catalogue. Ethics and International Affairs, the journal of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs, is an extremely important journal for a course like this. The BISA Journal, The Review of International Studies (and its predecessor the British Journal of International Studies) also regularly publishes articles relevant to the area. Political Theory, Ethics, Journal of Peace Research, International Studies Quarterly, International Organization, Journal of Political Philosophy and Philosophy and Public Affairs, are also worth consulting. You will find Ingenta, WileyScience, and JSTOR particularly useful for this course. These can be accessed after you have logged onto Athens (access to Athens is available via EASE). Unless otherwise stated, all articles listed here are available online via those resources.

5. Understanding warAlthough we will be involved in attempts to think rationally about the kinds of normative arguments that might justify war and the use of violence in politics, it is also a good idea to bear in mind the nature of our subject matter. It is therefore recommended that you supplement your reading with some non-theoretical accounts of war, such as accounts by journalists of recent conflicts, diaries, novels or poetry (some suggestions are given in the reading list). Both the BBC and Channel 4 have had recent seasons exploring war and conflict – many of the programmes will be available to view via iplayer or similar. These sources will aid your understanding of the ‘hard cases’ used in tutorials.

Imperial War Museum & Carnegie Council WebsitesYou can gain access to archival footage from the Imperial War Museum via Athens. After logging into Athens choose the Education Media OnLine

6

link. You will be able to watch and listen to archival material covering major wars throughout the 20th century. This can also be accessed from http://www.emol.ac.uk/ if you are logged onto a campus PC. Another useful website is http://www.carnegiecouncil.org

6. AssessmentThe course will be assessed by essay (40%), exam (50%) and tutorial participation (10%).

Essay: You must choose a question from the list provided below. The assessed essay should be typed, in a decent size font (minimum 11pt), and with decent spacing (at least 1.5.) You should include a properly referenced list of works cited at the end.

The essay is due on Friday, 9th of March, 12pm. The word limit is 2,000 words and essays which go over this length will be penalised to the tune of 5% for every 100 words.

Essay Questions

1. “The absolute pacifist is a bad citizen; times come when force must be used to uphold right, justice and ideals.” Discuss.

2. ‘Just as individuals are entitled to defend themselves against threats, so too are nations.’  Is this analogy a good one, and can it justify wars of self-defence?

3. Is it ever morally permissible to kill non-combatants in war?

4. “Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature – that little child beating its breast with its fist, for instance – and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.” (Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov.) And if it is not a child, but a suspected terrorist?

5. Was David Miliband right to say (on Radio 4 in 2009) that there are circumstances in which terrorism can be justifiable?

6. Can individuals be held morally accountable for the actions of their state?

7. Critically evaluate Laura Sjoberg’s feminist reformulation of Just War Theory

7

Submitting the essayAll course work must be submitted as a hard copy AND electronically.

Submitting the hard copiesStudents must deposit two hard copies of their essay in the Politics and IR Honours Essay Box, located in the wall outside room 1.11, Chrystal Macmillan Building. When doing so, students must complete a Politics IR Honours coversheet (available outside room 1.11), indicating their examination number and tutor’s name, and signing a plagiarism form (see below).

Guidelines to Note Submit two copies of the essay. Put only your Exam number on each copy of the essay. Complete ONE Essay Front Coversheet and be sure you

complete the Plagiarism Statement at the bottom of it. Staple the first copy of the essay to the front cover sheet and

paperclip thesecond to both of them.

Post the completed essays into the Politics essay box situated outside room 1.11, Chrystal Macmillan Building by 12pm on the day of deadline.

NOTE: All students should pay particular attention when completing the Plagiarism segment of the Essay Front Coversheet . If it is not completed correctly, coursework will not. be marked until the student returns to the office to complete/correct the section.

Electronic Submission

All honours courses now require that students submit their work electronically in addition to submitting two hard copies.

SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK TO WEBCT

1) In addition to the two hard copies, you must, by the same deadline, submit an electronic version via WebCT. The instructions for doing so are as follows.

2) Before submitting your coursework, please ensure that you SAVE YOUR ESSAY WITH A FILE NAME THAT INCLUDES YOUR EXAM NUMBER. To ensure anonymity, do not include your name anywhere on the essay.

3) Do not submit your bibliography separately from the essay. Our internal checks make sure the bibliography will not count as ‘plagiarised’ material.

8

4) Failure to follow these instructions will cause delays in getting your work marked and returned to you.

FILE FORMAT

1) Files must be in Word (.doc), rich text (.rtf), text (.txt) or PDF format. Microsoft Publisher, Open Office and Microsoft Works files will not be accepted.

UPLOADING AND SUBMITTING YOUR ESSAY

1) At the Course Home Page click on the Assignments tab situated on the Course Tools bar at the left hand side of the page.

2) Click on the relevant essay title in the middle of the screen (It will be called ‘Course essay’ or such) and then either:

3) Click on Add Attachment and locate your essay on your computer and attach it. Or you can copy and paste your essay into the window provided.

4) Click on Submit to finish.

Penalties for late submission Five marks per working day (i.e. excluding weekends) for up to 5

days; Coursework handed in more than 5 days late will receive a zero Essays which go over the word limit will lose 5% for every 100

words over the limit PLEASE NOTE that failure to submit an electronic version

along with the hard copy of your coursework will be treated as failure to submit, and subject to the same lateness penalties set out above.

Students with Learning DifficultiesAdvice, guidance and a range of support materials is available to students with learning difficulties (such as dyslexia).  These students should contact - in advance of coursework deadlines - the Disability Office for further information:  See the Disability Office's website: http://www.disability-office.ed.ac.uk/

Special CircumstancesPlease see the Politics and IR Handbook for guidance if you suffer serious illness, accident, bereavement or other special circumstance and, as a result, have difficulty in meeting the requirements of this course.

Visiting Students

9

Visiting and exchange students are expected to be assessed in the same way as Edinburgh students. If you are unable to be assessed in the normal way (that is, including completing the examination) you must contact the course organiser as soon as possible to make appropriate arrangements.

Feedback Essays will be returned within 3 working weeks of their deadlines. They will be marked according to the SSPS marking descriptors

(available in your Politics and IR Honours Handbook and on webCT) – please consult before submitting your essay

You will receive your essay back with a standardised marksheet (also available in your Politics and IR Honours Handbook and on webCT) on which will be written your mark and a paragraph of constructive comments

The mark for coursework is provisional, since coursework may also be seen by the external examiners and the mark may sometimes be amended

Students are entitled to request further feedback/clarification from the marker if they have questions about the written feedback they receive regarding coursework

Generalised exam feedback will be supplied on WebCT within three working weeks of the exam.

Communicating with StaffPlease consider email protocol, as detailed in your Politics/IR Handbook, when contacting members of staff: http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/18078/politics_honours_handbook_0809200808.pdf

10

TOPICS AND REQUIRED READINGS Week 1: General introduction to the course. Fundamental principles of just war theory. (AB)Tutorial: Ticking Bomb Scenario

Week 2: Pacifism (AB)Is pacifism a tenable position? If not, why not? How can pacifists conclude that non-violent resistance is preferable to war and organised, collective violence? Tutorial: Ghandi

A.J. Coates, The Ethics of War, ch. 3

J. Narveson, ‘Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis’, Ethics 75 (1965): 259-271

C. Ryan, ‘Self-Defense, Pacifism and the Possibility of Killing’, Ethics 93 (1983): 508-524.

J. Thomson, ‘Self-Defense’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 20 (1991): 283-310.

Further reading:

C.K. Ihara, ‘In Defense of a Version of Pacifism’ Ethics, Vol. 88, No. 4. (Jul., 1978):369-374.

M. Otsuka, ‘Killing the Innocent in Self-Defense’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Winter, 1994): 74-94.

J. McMahan, ‘Self-Defense and the Problem of the Innocent Attacker’ Ethics, Vol. 104, No. 2. (Jan., 1994): 252-290.

Week 3: Just ad bellum I: Prevention, pre-emption, self-defence (CM)Under what conditions, if any, is a country/group entitled to wage a war of self-defence? Does it make sense to think about self-defence in war in the same way as we tend to think about self-defence between individuals? Under what conditions, if any, is preventive war morally permissible? Is there a meaningful distinction between a pre-emptive war and a preventive war?Tutorial: Engaging in a ‘pre-emptive’ war: Iraq 2003

D. Luban, ‘Preventive War’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (2004): 207-248

11

D. Rodin War and Self-Defence, ch. 6-7. [OL]

M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, chs 4-5

Further reading:

J. Gow, ‘Principles of pre-emption’, in A. Hehir, N. Kuhrt and A. Mumford (eds). International Law, Security and Ethics (Routledge, 2011), 111-128.

D. Luban, ‘Just War and Human Rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (1980): 160-81.

J. McMahan ‘Aggression and Punishment’ pp. 67-84 in L. May (ed.) War: Essays in Political Philosophy (CUP 2008)

J. McMahan, ‘Preventive War and the Killing of the Innocent’ in R. Sorajbi and D.Rodin, (eds) The Ethics of War – Shared Problems in Different Traditions (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006)

J. McMahan, ‘Innocence, Self-Defense and Killing in War’ The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 2, Number 3 (1994): 193-221

L. May Aggression and Crimes Against Peace (CUP 2008) pp. 207-228 ‘Defining State Aggression’

D. Rodin and H. Shue (eds) Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification, (Oxford University Press, 2007), [OL]

J. J. Thomson, ‘Self-Defense’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 20 (1991): 283-310.

N. Zohar, ‘Collective War and Individualistic Ethics: Against the Conscription of Self Defence’, Political Theory 21 (1993): 606-622.

Week 4: Jus ad bellum II: Humanitarian intervention (CM)On what grounds, if any, is a country entitled to wage a war of intervention? Could humanitarian intervention ever be morally mandatory? Tutorial: Humanitarian War? Kosovo and Libya

C. R. Beitz, ‘Nonintervention and Communal Integrity,’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9 (1980):385-391.

J. Davidovic, ‘Are Humanitarian Military Interventions Obligatory?’ Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25 (2008): 134-144.

M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, ch 6.

12

Further reading:

A. Buchanan, ‘Justifying Preventive War’, in D. Rodin and H. Shue (eds.) Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification (OUP, 2007) [OL]

C. Brown ‘Selective humanitarianism: in defense of inconsistency’ in D.K. Chatterjee and D.E. Scheid (eds.) Ethics and Foreign Intervention (CUP 2003) pp. 31-50

H. Bull (ed) Intervention in World Politics (OUP, 1984)

S. Caney, Justice Beyond Borders, ch 7. [OL]

C. Fabre, ‘Mandatory Rescue Killings’ The Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 15,Number 4 (2007): 363–384

C. Holder ‘Responding to Humanitarian Crises’ in L. May (ed.) War: Essays in Political Philosophy (CUP 2008) pp. 85-104

J. L. Holzgrefe and R. O. Keohane (eds) Humanitarian Intervention (CUP, 2003)

A.J. Kuperman, ‘The Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from the Balkans’ International Studies Quarterly, 52 (2008): 49-80.

A. Lang (ed) Just Intervention (Georgetown U. P, 2003)

J. McMahan, J. ‘Intervention and Collective Self-Determination. Ethics & International Affairs (1996): 1-24.

T. Nardin and M. Williams (eds) Humanitarian Intervention - NOMOS XLVII (NYUP, 2006)

James Pattison , Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect — Who Should Intervene? OUP 2010 [OL]

D. Rodin, ‘The Problem with Prevention’, in D. Rodin and H. Shue (eds.) Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification (OUP 2007) [OL]

F. Teson, Humanitarian intervention: an inquiry into law and morality (Irvington-on- Hudson: Transnational Publishing, 1997, 2nd ed.)

T. G. Weiss Humanitarian Intervention (Polity 2007)

J. Welsh (ed) Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (OUP 2004)

13

Week 5: Terrorism (CPD)What is terrorism? Can it ever be justified? Suppose that resorting to terrorism, in breach of the principle of non-combatant immunity, is the only way to further a just cause. Is that a permissible course of action? Is there something morally distinctive about terrorism? Case Study: the ANC

S. Scheffler, ‘Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive?‘, Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (2006): 1-17

S. Smilansky, ‘Terrorism, Justification, and Illusion’, Ethics 114 (2004): 790-805.

M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, ch. 12

Further reading:C. A. J. Coady ‘Terrorism, Morality and Supreme Emergency’ Ethics, 114

(2004): 772-789.

R. G. Frey and C. W. Morris (eds), Violence, Terrorism and Justice (Cambridge: CUP, 1991), esp. chs 4 and 6.

R.E. Goodin, What’s Wrong with Terrorism? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006)

Ted Honderich, After the terror (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2002).

F.M. Kamm, ‘Terrorism and Intending Evil’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 36 (2008): 157-186

L. McPherson, ‘Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong’, Ethics 17 (2007): 524-46.

I. Primoratz (ed) Terrorism, the Philosophical Issues (London: Palgrave, 2004)

V. Held, ‘Terrorism, Rights and Political Goals’, in R. G. Frey and C. W. Morris (eds.), Violence, Terrorism and Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)

B. T. Wilkins, Terrorism and Collective Responsibility (London: Routledge, 1992)

14

N.J. Zohar, ‘Innocence and Complex Threats: Upholding the War Ethic and the Condemnation of Terrorism’, Ethics 114 (July 2004): 734–751

Week 6: Innovative Learning Week – no lecture and tutorial

Week 7: Jus in bello II: Targeted killings If one accepts the moral legitimacy of large scale killing of combatants, can one object – on moral grounds – to the targeted killing of combatants? What about the targeted killing of terrorist in wars against terrors? Or are targeted killings particularly disturbing from a moral point of view?Case Study: Killing of Osama Bin Laden

R. Berkowitz, ‘Assassinating Justly: Reflections on Justice and Revenge in the Osama Bin Laden Killing’, Law, Culture and the Humanities (2011) 7: 346http://lch.sagepub.com/content/7/3/346.full.pdf+html

D. Statman ‘Targeted Killing’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law (2004) 5(1)

M. Walzer, ‘Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1973): 60-80.

S. de Wijz ‘Targeted killing: a ‘dirty hands’ analysis", Contemporary Politics, Vol. 15, No. 3, September 2009, 305–320 http://wiki.victorybriefs.com/images/0/00/Targeted_Killing%3B_a_dirty_hands_analysis_by_Stephen_de_Wijze.pdf

Further reading:N. Chomsky ‘My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death’, Guernica, 09

May 2011 http://www.globalrights.it/world/middle-east/1420-my-reaction-to-osama-bin-ladens-death-.pdf

T. Meisels, ‘Combatants – Lawful And Unlawful’, Law and Philosophy (2007) 26: 31–65

A. Rogers and D. McGoldrick ‘Assassination and Targeted Killing—The Killing of Osama Bin Laden’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol 60, (July 2011): 778–788

Week 8: Jus in bello III : Non-Combatant Immunity On what grounds is the intentional killing of non-combatants impermissible? Does the prohibition hold in situations of supreme emergency? Are there non-combatants who can be killed in situations of non-emergency? Can non-combatants be killed unintentionally?

15

Case Studies: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the bombing of German cities during World War 2

D. Statman ‘Supreme Emergencies Revisited’, Ethics 117 (2006): 58-79

C. Toner ‘Just War and the supreme emergency exemption’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 55 (2005): 545- 561.

M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, chs. 8 and 10

Further reading:A. J. Bellamy, ‘Supreme emergencies and the protection of non-

combatants in war’, International Affairs, 80 (2004): 829-850.

A. J. Coady, Morality and Political Violence (Cambridge: CUP, 2007), ch. 7

P. Foot, ‘The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect’ in P. Foot: Virtues and Vices and Others Essays (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978)

J. Glover, Causing Death and Saving Lives (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1977).

F.M. Kamm, ‘Failures of Just War Theory: Terror, Harm, and Justice’, Ethics 114 (July 2004): 650–692

A. McIntyre, ‘Doing Away with Double Effect’, Ethics, Vol. 111, No. 2. (Jan., 2001): 219-255.

T. Nagel ‘War and Massacre’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971): 123-144

M. Otsuka, ‘Scepticism about saving the greatest number’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 32 (2004): 413-426

W.S. Quinn, ‘Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Autumn, 1989): 334-351

I. Primoratz (ed) Civilian Immunity in War (OUP, 2007).

Week 9: Jus in bello IV: Prisoners of War (AB)Issues to think about: What – if any – principles of restraint apply to intelligence gathering during war? Case Studies: Guantanamo Bay, Recap on Ticking Bomb Scenario

16

M. Ignatieff, ‘Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Terrorism’. Social Research. 69(4) (2002): 1137-1158.

E.A. Posner, ‘Do States Have a Moral Obligation to Obey International Law?’ Stanford Law Review 55 (2003):1901-19.

J. Steyn, ‘Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole’. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53 (2004):1-15.

Further readingJ. Bravin, ‘Guantanamo’. In Crimes of War: What the Public Should

Know: (W. W. Norton, 2007). http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/guantanamo/

A. Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002), ch. 4

K.J Greenberg, ‚What the Torture Memos Tell Us’. Survival. 51(3) (2009), pp. 5-12.

M. Ignatieff: The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004)

L. May, ‘Prosecuting Military Leaders for War Crimes’ in his War Crimes and Just War (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

J. Mertus and T. Sajjad, ‘Human Rights and Human Insecurity: The Contributions of US Counterterrorism’. Journal of Human Rights. 7(1) (2008): 1-23.

K.L. Scheppele, ‘Law in a time of emergency: states of exception and the temptations of 9/11’, Journal of Constitutional Law, 6(5) (2004), pp. 1001-1083.

H. Shue, ‘Torture’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 7 (1978): 124-143.

D. Sussman, ‘What’s Wrong with Torture?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2005): 1-33.

J. Waldron, ‘Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House’ Columbia Law Review 105 (2005): 1681-1750

Week 10: Jus post bellum (AB)How can justice best be achieved after the fighting has stopped? Can/should soldiers be held morally responsible for crimes committed during war? Or is it more appropriate to hold their leaders to account? Do justifications for a ‘just’ war extend to the aftermath of such a war? Should the pursuit of justice be emphasised over achieving peace?

17

Tutorial: My Lai Massacre

G. Bass, ‘Just Post Bellum’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (2004): 384-412.

D. Estlund, ‘On Following Orders in an Unjust War’, Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (2007): 213-34.

S. Levinson, ‘Responsibility for Crimes of War’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1973): 244-273.

M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, ch. 9, 18-19.

Further reading:

G. Bass ‘Atrocity & legalism’ Daedalus 132(1) (2003): 73-82.

Christodoulidis, E. A. and S. Veitch, Eds. (2001). Lethe’s Law: Justice, Law and Ethics in Reconciliation. Oxford, Portland Oregon, Hart Publishing.

J. Goldsmith & S. D. Krasner ‘The limits of idealism’, Daedalus 132(1) (2003): 47-63.

M. Koskenniemi, ‘Between Impunity and Show Trials’, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, vol. 6, 2002, pp. 1-35

http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/koskenniemi_6.pdf

L. May, ‘Act and Circumstances in the Crime of Aggression’, Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (2007): 169-86.

D. Mappel, ‘Coerced Moral Agents? Individual Responsibility for Military Service’, Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (1998): 171-89.

G. Simpson, Law, War and Crime (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007)

P. van Zyl, ‘Dilemmas of Transitional Justice: The Case of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’, Journal of International Affairs 52(2) (1999): 647-667 (http://www.fathom.com/media/PDF/2392_van_zyl.pdf)

Week 11: A Feminist Approach to Just War Theory (CPD)Is Just War Theory based on a gender bias? This final lecture assesses the feminist critique of the whole Just War tradition and serves as an opportunity to critically reflect on the course as a whole. There will be no specific case study to prepare for this week.

18

Eide, Marian (2008), “The Stigma of Nation” Feminist Just War, Privilege and Responsibility,” Hypatia 23:2

Sjoberg, Laura (2006) “Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle: Why Gender Analysis Needs Feminism” International Studies Quarterly, 50

Sjoberg, Laura; Peet, Jessica (2011) “A(nother) Dark Side of the Protection Racket” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Volume 13, Number 2, June 2011 , pp. 163-182(20)

Further Reading

Elsthtain, Jean Bethke (1985) “Reflections on War and Political Discourse: Realism, Just War, and Feminism in a Nuclear Age,” Political Theory, 13:1, 39-57

Evans, Mark Just War Theory: A Reappraisal (Edinburgh: EUP, 2005).

Sjoberg, Laura (2006), Gender, Justice and the Wars in Iraq: a Feminist Reformulation of Just War Theory, Lexington Books

Young, Iris Marion (2003) “Feminist Reactions to the Contemporary Security Regime” Hypatia 18:1

19