Module 12 Notes
Module 12 Notes GOV 312L
Popular in Intro to Foreign Policy
Popular in Political Science
This 7 page Study Guide was uploaded by Leyla Notetaker on Wednesday October 28, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to GOV 312L at University of Texas at Austin taught by Moser in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 121 views. For similar materials see Intro to Foreign Policy in Political Science at University of Texas at Austin.
Reviews for Module 12 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/28/15
Wednesday October 7 2015 Module 12 Notes quiz answers The three tenants that make up just war theory are jus ad bellum jus in bello and jus post bellum These cover the reasons for going to war the manner in which it is carried out and result of the war Crawford agrees with the Bush administration that the rise of nonstate actors has fundamentally transformed the nature of war She believes that one key difference is that wars often no longer have a defined beginning and end This makes the application of just war theory much more difficult Realism believes that international politics are fundamentally different from domestic politics in that domestic politics is defined by the presence of an overarching authority the government while international politics is defined by anarchy Because there is no central authority every state must be in charge of its own security Note that the discrimination of targets vs nontargets falls under jus in bello or just conduct in war In order for a war to pass the requirements of jus ad bellum it must be because of a just cause undertaken as a last resort ordered by a legitimate authority done with the right intention and carried outwith proportionality meaning the goals of the war must be proportional to the means of the war One reason that a state may go to war is to extract concessions from an adversary For example state A may attack state B because it wants some of state B39s territory By inflicting enough damage on it B might capitulate to A and rather than continuing in war cede it the territory Another reason that a state may go to war is to completely disarm an adversary and then use the opportunity to remake the adversary39s political system as was the case with the victors against Germany in World War II Violence and the International Political Order politics is an innately social process about coordinating behavior of lots of people gt a way to understand social behavior politics authoritative allocation of scarce resources implies some degree of competition or social conflict over that allocation authority capacity to direct social behavior actions of others often relies on coercion capacity to impose costs or penalty physical economic social emotional etc if directive not followed coercion can be used to enforce and predate presence of authority also relies on legitimacy target of directive recognizes authority of person or organization giving directive ex paying taxes politics is about using authority to settle distributional conflicts within society ex Obama raising taxes on wealthy political order stable patterns or regularities of social behavior that are induced or set by authority relationships or coercion critical role for coercion and violence in politics violence deployment or threat of it often necessary for enforcement of directive eg Hobbes s Leviathan idea of centralizing power political stability rests on the capacity to enforce directives with violence predation forceable redistribution of resources dilemma we need this power but it can also be abused ex Hitler use of violence for predation as selfsustaining sometimes have to go to war to impose limits on or to regulate violence if do not counter force with force future of political impotence becomes a target for extortion 0 Dilemma for US how to deal with American military force before and after defeat of Hitler John lkenberry idea that the US found its own power legitimizing its power by subjecting its military power to constraints of military powerAmerican democracy and external institutions such as NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization democracy places constraints on leaders and their use of force competition with Soviet Union US as indispensable nation world needs US military power but is its use sufficiently regulated War a military contest among competing large organizations that posses conflicting interests over some set of issues in dispute political disagreement prior to war were unable to reach some sort of compromise that could have alleviated the costs associated with going to war war entails use of physical punishment to try and secure a new round of political concessions over the issue in dispute by disarming the adversary using the power to hurt to get the other side to give in reveals distribution of military power between sides violent means to some political end Clausewitz war as the continuation of politics by other means violence reduce capacity of future fight back of enemy by disarming them Ethics and War paradox how can we ethically justify the destruction of war no overarching world government that can easily enforce rules on sovereign states UN does not have monopoly on force states have historically engaged in wars reality of international system but should they ethical question to ask US has defended wars on moral grounds often times feels the need to provide moral justification for use of military force want to see ourselves as the good guys REALISM international relations is different from domestic politics no overarching authority states must provide own security through own military power strategic considerations must dictate war resembles state of nature morality should not be considered in international relationswar secondary role IDEALISM morality must be taken into consideration but may require the use of force for just ends places moral considerations at center of international relations values matter pursue foreign policies that match key national values such as democracy amp human rights not necessarily pacifist or dismiss war as never morally justified Woodrow Wilson PACIFISM deny any justifiable reasons to go to war killing is never justified always wrong no goal worth the destruction of war murder maiming and destruction is always wrong War what is it good for Just War Theory L jus ad bellum jus in bello jus post bellum war can be justified if certain requirements are met very long history in western political thought on war back to 5th century Catholic Church revival in 20th century with advent of nuclear weapons and American involvement in Vietnam War debate reemerged with 911 amp face of terrorism and nonstate actor threats jus ad bellum just initiation just resort to war most developed part of just war tradition war must have just cause like self defense ex attack on Pearl Harbor gt America enters into WWII is just only when armed conflict is a last resort and all other means have failed can only be taken under a legitimate authority a state a government in control of territory provides central control on decision to go to war no private armies or actors using violence to achieve their goals requires a right intention motivated by defense not aggression has a reasonable chance of success given degree of violence and death no suicide missions proportionality the ends of a war must be proportional to the means of war jus in bello just conduct of war discrimination there are legitimate and illegitimate targets of war states must be able to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants not permissible to kill those not engaged in fighting only soldiers vs soldiers murder vs war casualties proportionality how much force is morally acceptable in a war are there certain actions off limits even in wartime All is fair in love and war unnecessary violence should be avoided women should not be raped children should not be killed POW should not be harmedmurdered etc jus post bellumjustice after the end of war produces an acceptable aftermath for the defeated parties victors cannot do whatever they want with the defeated victors should achieve goals of war but not pursue vengeance civilians should not be harmed rights should be protected reestablish peace preferable to peace that existed before the war punishment of defeated acceptable but should not be overly severe 0 If a war is unjust then who is responsible Leaders Soldiers Citizens moral responsibility of citizens in support of leaders war decisions in democracyetc war sometimes may be a necessary evil because it avoids a greater harm of not acting with military force to stop some other evil war as a necessary and lesser evil utilitarian approach war can produce greater good than harm defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria Discussion of Crawford Reading on Just War Theory and America amp Counter Terrorism Just war theory was never a perfect fit for war at any stage in history due to changing nature of war Bush Administration still declared that war has been transformed by terrorism BUT the fight against terrorism was a just war war has been transformed in the age of terrorism terrorists fight wars differently than states and states counter the terrorist threat differently than countering the threat of other states aims combatants and conduct of war has changed with end of Cold War nuclear weapons states fight terrorism with conventional forces making just initiation of war difficult jus ad bellum line between war and peace is blurred making just conduct of war difficult jus in bello Crawford argues that war has been transformed bc both terrorists and states fighting against terrorists are compelled to fight each other using different tactics than what was used when states fought other states on more defined battlefields unlike previous wars wars between states and terrorist organizations don t have a definitive beginning middle and end thus blurring the line between war and peace terrorist attacks usually occur unexpectedly and the target population demands very quick reactions to such attacks making initiation of just war more difficult Bush Administration clearly declared that war on terrorism was not a war on Islam itself Perennial concerns have been around for centuries not just current war what justifies preemption what is last resort against terrorism what is selfdefense both sides feel they are fighting just wars Novel concerns more current specific to current circumstances how to define terrorism how to limit terrorismcounter terrorism war can war against terrorism be successful Outside concerns critics of just war theory itself how does just war theory matter without strong international law why not concentrate on avoiding war altogether 0 Is just war theory still relevant Crawford YES very hard to imagine a just counterterror war US needs to take a different approach that deemphasizes counterterrorism war and emphasizes counterterrorism defense and peace tactics remedy the sources of terrorism
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'