国際政治基礎A spring 2015 class 5 lect 5

69
Fundamental Concepts of International Politics Spring 2013 Prof. H. Steven Green Toyo University Faculty of Law Class 5,Lecture 6 May 11th, 2015 Ethics & Morality in IP, Just War Doctrine

Transcript of 国際政治基礎A spring 2015 class 5 lect 5

Fundamental Concepts of

International Politics Spring 2013

Prof. H. Steven GreenToyo UniversityFaculty of Law

Class 5,Lecture 6May 11th, 2015

Ethics & Morality in IP,

Just War Doctrine

Stag

Rabbit

Stag Hunt

• Two hunters can either hunt one stag together or hunt rabbits separately.

• Stags provide more food, but...• Hunting a stag is difficult and requires patience and

cooperation.• It is easy to catch a rabbit, but the rabbit provides

less food.• The hunters must cooperate to get the most food.

Stag Hunt

• Cooperation requires patience and trust.• Patience: The hunters must wait quietly for a very

long time until a stag comes.• Trust: It is easy to catch a rabbit, so it is tempting to

quit waiting, hunt a rabbit and enjoy the rest of the day.

Stag hunt

B

A

Stag hunt  = Coordination Game

B Cooperates

B Defects

A Cooperates 5, 5 0, 1

A Defects 1, 0 1, 1

Fighting piratesDifferent types of governments coordinate to fight pirates

Other countriesCooperate

Other countriesDefect

USACooperates

Coordinated fight by everyone: Decrease in number of pirate attacks, lower costs for everyone, benefits of cooperation.

USA fights without help (expensive, risky).Other countries get free benefit of safer seas (but difficult to get all pirates.)

USADefects

Other countries fight without help (expensive, dangerous).USA get free benefit of safer seas (but difficult to get all pirates.)

Everyone fights but only when their own ships are threatened. Increase in number of pirate attacks.

Six-Party Talks*North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, U.S.,

Japan• Who are the hunters?• What is the stag?• What is the rabbit?

Hunters: SK, C, J, R, USStag: Change by NKRabbit: NK concessions to one state, but not the others (family visits for SK, return kidnapped Japanese citizens, mineral exploration rights for China, etc.)*Slides 8-10: CREDIT TO ROBERT KELLEYhttps://asiansecurityblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/six-party-talks-as-a-game-

theoretic-stag-hunt-1-n-korea-is-the-stag/

Six-Party TalksNorth Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, U.S., Japan

NK’s strategy: “Divide to survive”: Divide the 5 other states by giving them concessions separately.

Six-Party TalksNorth Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, U.S., Japan

US, J, C, SK, RCooperate

US, J, C, SK, RDo not cooperate

US, J, C, SK, RCooperate

Change in NK, greater security in

East Asia

China takes a BIG rabbit: More

influence for C, less security for other 4

US, J, C, SK, RDo not cooperate China takes a BIG

rabbit: More influence for C, less security for other 4

Concessions for US, J, C, SK, R,

No change in NK Reduced cooperation

Six-Party TalksNorth Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, U.S., Japan

• The rabbit China hunts is bigger & tastier than the stag: Security, influence

(4.) ETHICS & IP

•Is morality in the international

system different from morality in

states?

ETHICS AND IPThis man: NOT punished for killing

ETHICS AND IPThis man: Punished for killing

Is it okay to kill 1 to save many?

Is it okay to kill 1 osumo-san to save many?

What if the osumo-san had broken the train’s brakes? Okay to kill him now?

ETHICS AND IP

Ethics in international politics ARE not the same as ethics in domestic politics

• Is it wrong to kill 1 person in order to save 100?

• Is it wrong to kill one person who has a bomb that will destroy Tokyo?

• Is it wrong to kill many people in order to save your country or to stop genocide (大虐殺 )?

DISCUSSION

What are FOUR reasons why ethics play less of a role in IP than in domestic politics?

ETHICS AND IP

FOUR REASONS ETHICS PLAY LESS OF A ROLE IN IP THAN IN DOMESTIC POLITICS

1. Weak international consensus about values (国際的に一致した意見はない )

• Cultural and religious differences• Examples: whaling (捕鯨 ), death penalty (死刑 )

ETHICS AND IP

FOUR REASONS ETHICS PLAY LESS OF A ROLE IN IP THAN IN DOMESTIC POLITICS

2. States are not individuals: • Leaders of states are judged as leaders of states, not

as individuals (リーダは、個人ではなく、国のリーダとして、裁かれる )

• Killing is wrong but…• Sometimes we want our leaders to tell our army to kill

people

ETHICS AND IP

FOUR REASONS ETHICS PLAY LESS OF A ROLE IN IP THAN IN DOMESTIC POLITICS

3. “Complexity of causation*” Very difficult to understand which actions(行動 ) cause which consequences(結果 )

*causation = 原因

ETHICS AND IPFOUR REASONS ETHICS PLAY LESS OF A ROLE IN

IP THAN IN DOMESTIC POLITICS

3. “Complexity of causation” (continued):• 1933 Oxford debate: Students promise not to

fight for their country Hitler thinks British people are soft

• READ about the “hamburger argument”

ETHICS AND IP

FOUR REASONS ETHICS PLAY LESS OF A ROLE IN IP THAN IN DOMESTIC POLITICS

4. Less order, so there is less justice in IP• Justice (公正 ) requires order (秩序 )• International society does not have enough

institutions to create order (平和と秩序を維持する国際組織はない)

The Role of Morality in IP

Which statement do you agree with and why?

A. Morality in the international system should be the same as morality in our society.

B. Morality in the international system should not be the same as morality in our society.

DISCUSSION

What are the 3 views of the role of morality in international politics?

3 Views of the Role of Morality

1. SKEPTICS2. STATE MORALISTS3. COSMOPOLITANS

1. SKEPTICS• Morality has no meaning in IP

because there are no institutions to provide order

• No sense of community, so     no moral rights and duties

Athens and MelosAthens demands that Melos pay Athens for

protection and help fight Sparta…or die.• Melians faced a terrible choice:

Die free or live as slaves• Melians refused. So…• Athens killed all men, and enslaved all women

and children. (enslave =人を奴隷にする)

“MIGHT MAKES RIGHT”

Should countries take care of their own problems?

Which statement do you agree with and why?

A. My country should solve its own problems and let other countries solve their own problems.

B. My country should help other countries to solve their problems.

Should countries take care of their own problems?

Which statement do you agree with and why?

A. My country should solve its own problems and let other countries solve their own problems.

B. My country should help other countries to solve their problems.

Should countries take care of their own problems?

Match each country with the results of the survey.

BritainFranceGermanyJapanSpainU.S.

• Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, 2010

Should countries take care of their own problems?

Which statement do you agree with and why?

A. My country should solve its own problems and let other countries solve their own problems.

B. My country should help other countries to solve their problems.

Should countries take care of their own problems?

Match each country with the results of the survey.

BritainFranceGermanyJapanSpainU.S.

• Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, 2010

Should countries take care of their own problems?

Match each country with the results of the survey.

BritainFranceGermanyJapanSpainU.S.

• Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, 2010

2. STATE MORALISTS• IP is based on society of states• Protect individuals by protecting state

sovereignty• People suffer in failed states and states

that are invaded by other countries

3. COSMOPOLITANS• IP is a society of individuals• International justice should be justice for

individuals• National boundaries have no moral

standing

IR Theories: REALISM1. IP is a system of Hobbesian anarchy.2. States are the most important actors in IP

because they are the most powerful.3. All international politics is power politics.4. Power is zero-sum and relative. (If state X has

more power, all other states have less.)5. We are lucky if we live in a democratic state:

our leaders should maintain our power. (To do that, sometimes our government has to cooperate with un-democratic governments.)

IR Theories: LIBERALISM1. Anarchy is a problem but one that can be solved.2. People are motivated not only by power but also by

security and the desire to live well.3. States are important, but not the only actors that

matter: there is an international society which includes other kinds of actors. However…

4. States have the most military and economic power and should protect their people in an anarchic world.

5. Democratic states are the best way to provide security and well-being for their people and more democratic states = more peace.

IR Theories: CONSTRUCTIVISM1. Anarchy is what states make of it. Leaders’ views of

the international system are constructed by:• Social structures (社会的な構造 ), e.g. economic-, legal-,

political systems, etc. of a country.• Ideas• Norms (規範)• Culture

2. States are social constructs, NOT natural. We are not born Chinese, Japanese, American, French, Dutch, etc., but we are taught to be Chinese, etc.

Morality and IP TheoriesWhich IP theory matches which view of morality?

VIEW OF MORALITY

IP THEORY

Skeptics ?

State moralists ?

Cosmopolitans ?

Morality and IP TheoriesWhich IP theory matches which view of morality?

VIEW OF MORALITY

IP THEORY

Skeptics Realism

State moralists Realism / Liberalism

Cosmopolitans Constructivism

Discussion QuestionsIs war always wrong?

Why or why not?If it is not always wrong, when is it okay to kill?

Who is it okay to kill? How is it okay to kill (e.g. with guns, chemical

weapons, nuclear weapons)?

chemical weapons =化学兵器

Is war always wrong?Was it wrong to kill German soldiers in World War II?

Is war always wrong?Was it wrong to kill German civilians in WWII?

Is it wrong for terrorists to kill civilians?

Is it wrong to kill terrorists?

JUST WAR DOCTRINE (正戦論 )

Is war always wrong?

St. Augustine (354-430)• Created first theory of war and justice.• Said some wars are necessary to stop evil.

Saint Augustine in His Study, by Sandro Botticelli, 1480, Chiesa di Ognissanti, Florence, Italy

JUST WAR DOCTRINE (正戦論 )

• From Roman & Christian philosophies• Secularized(世俗化した ) after

the 17th Century• Basic point: Killing is wrong

JUST WAR DOCTRINE

Just War Doctrine is NOT pacifism (平和主義 )

PACIFISM JUST WAR DOC.

Killing is wrong. Killing is wrong.

Violence creates more violence.

?

Killing is always wrong for any reason.

?

War is always wrong. ?

JUST WAR DOCTRINE

Just War Doctrine is NOT pacifism (平和主義 )

PACIFISM JUST WAR DOC.

Killing is wrong. Killing is wrong.

Violence creates more violence.

NOT responding to violence creates more violence.

Killing is always wrong for any reason.

?

War is always wrong. ?

JUST WAR DOCTRINE

Just War Doctrine is NOT pacifism (平和主義 )

PACIFISM JUST WAR DOC.

Killing is wrong. Killing is wrong.

Violence creates more violence.

NOT responding to violence creates more violence.

Killing is always wrong for any reason.

Sometimes killing is necessary: Reasons are important.

War is always wrong. ?

JUST WAR DOCTRINE

Just War Doctrine is NOT pacifism (平和主義 )

PACIFISM JUST WAR DOC.

Killing is wrong. Killing is wrong.

Violence creates more violence.

NOT responding to violence creates more violence.

Killing is always wrong for any reason.

Sometimes killing is necessary: Reasons are important.

War is always wrong. Wars is sometimes necessary for justice (正義 ).

Rules for “just wars.”

Are Japanese pacifist?Think about the popularity of Article 9 of Japan’s

constitution (憲法第 9条 ).Do most Japanese believe in pacifism?

OR Do most Japanese believe in Just War Doctrine ?

Is military force necessary for world order?

57% of Japanese agree

JUST WAR DOCTRINE

Two principles of just war doctrine:

jus ad bellum• When the use of force is moral

jus in bello• How to use force morally

jus ad bellum 5 conditions when it is okay to use force 1. Just cause (正しい動機)2. Right intention(正しい意図)3. Legitimate authority(正統な権威)4. Last resort(最後の手段) 5. Reasonable chance of success (成功についての妥当な可能性)

jus in bello 3 Principles for using force1. Observe the laws of war (戦時国際法の遵守)2. Maintain proportionality (「敵の用いる手段との」均衡の維持)

3. Obverse the principle of noncombantant immunity, i.e. avoid killing civilians (非戦闘員を危険にさらさない原則である)

JUST WAR DOCTRINE, 6

Why terrorism is wrong:• Immoral (不道徳的 )to kill non-combatants (非戦闘員 )

• Terrorists TRY to kill non-combatants.• Even if you agree with the terrorists’ reasons….• it is wrong to kill non-combatants for ANY reason

JUST WAR DOCTRINE, 7

• Skeptics are wrong to say there are no moral choices in war• Morality is about making choices• Survival depends on choices• Large threat => Less choice

See you next week! DON’T BE LATE!!!!

• Study with your friends.• If you study, this test will NOT be

difficult.

REMEMBER:Good luck is the result of

good planning!

You’ve worked hard since April.

Thank you, and good luck on the test!!