1 / 30

The Law and Politics of International Terrorism

Legal disagreementoftenreflectsphilosophicaldisagreementThisisparticularlytrue in thecase of terrorismThemostsubstantive point of philosophicaldisagreementisthequestionwhetheracts of terrorismcaneverbemorallyjustifiedVery different answersaregiven to thatquestion. Most treattheissue of terrorism

cleantha
Télécharger la présentation

The Law and Politics of International Terrorism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. The Law and Politics of International Terrorism Lecture V: A Moral Right to Terrorism?

    2. Legal disagreementoftenreflectsphilosophicaldisagreement Thisisparticularlytrue in thecase of terrorism Themostsubstantive point of philosophicaldisagreementisthequestionwhetheracts of terrorismcaneverbemorallyjustified Very different answersaregiven to thatquestion. Most treattheissue of terrorism in the wider context of politicalviolence and, in particular, just war theory.

    3. Philosopherslikelawyers and socialscientistsdisagreeaboutthe right definition of terrorism Thedefinitionyouendorseinfluencestheoutcome of themoralitydiscussion Conversely, yourmoralviewsmayinfluencethedefinitionyouendorse DefinitionalIssues?

    4. Given the abundance of competing definitions and the complexity of the issue it makes little sense to discuss the morality of terrorist acts per se. To avoid begging the question it may be more reasonable to look at the different philosophical issues underlying the issue.

    5. Terrorism, according to mostphilosophers, involves Violence againstotherpeople forthesake of intimidationorcoercion (usually of a third party) committedforparticular (mostlypolitical) purposes Features of a workingdefinition

    6. For a strictpacifisttheuse of anyviolenceismorallyinacceptable Most people, however, will distinguishbetween different kinds of violentacts and applysome form of theproportionalityprinciple Someforms of violencemay still beimpermissible per se! Violence

    7. Crucial point: Shouldweadopt a narrowor a widedefinitionofotherpeople? Againstotherpeople

    8. Narrowdefinitionsseeonly non-combatantsorinnocents as suitabletargets of terroristacts?Attacksagainstcombatantscanneverqualify as terroristacts (but may still becrimes) Oftenpreferredbyphilosophersbecausetheycapturetheessence of whatmakesterrorismprima faciereprehensible. Narrowdefinitions

    9. Oftenpreferredbysocialscientists Thosewhooperatefrom a widedefinition will mostlydistinguishbetweenattacksagainstcombatants and non-combatants as well findingtheformereasier to justify Reason: Analogy to just war theory! Widedefinitions

    10. Whataboutcollateraldamage? Shouldthedegree of intentbe a a criterion? (directintent, obliqueintent, knowing ...) Whatstandard do weapply to distinguishbetweencombatants and non-combatants? Is a soldier a combatantwhile off duty? Is therulersindespensible Secretary? Pervasivequestions:

    11. Cantherebeguiltbyassociation? Whatdegree of involvementisneeded: Politicalinfluence, economicadvantages, merebelonging to a certainprivilegedadvantagegroup? Collectiveresponsibilityfortheactions of thethird party?

    12. Uwe Steinhoff (philosopher): In Israel, a democracy, thepeoplevoteswith a large majorityfor a suspected war criminal, terrorist, militarist, and racist, namely Ariel Sharon. (...) Once such a personis Prime Minister, thepeopledoesnotneed to demandbrutality and crimesagainstthePalestinians he will do this on his ownaccord, whichispreciselywhythe Israelis trustinglyelectedhim. Wearedealingherewith a case of hiredmurder, hiredmutilation, and hireddeprivation of liberty. The Israelis whovotedfor Sharon aretherefore (...) guilty of thecrimes he commitsagainstthePalestinians (...). Ifbykillingthem, onebyone, onecould cause them to end thecriminal Israeli policiesagainstPalestine (...) thiswouldbejustified. Political responsibility?

    13. The American peopleshouldrememberthattheypaytaxes to theirgovernment and thattheyvotedfortheirpresident. Theirgovernmentmakesweapons and providesthem to Israel, whichtheyuse to kill Palestinian Muslims. Giventhatthe American Congress is a committeethatrepresentsthepeople, thefactthatitagreeswiththeactions of the American governmentprovesthat America in itsentiretyisresponsiblefortheatrocitiesthatitiscommittingagainst Muslims. Politicalresponsibility?

    15. Whataboutthosewhodidnotvoteforthepresentadministrationorareevenactivelyopposeditspolicies? Political responsibility? ..

    16. Whatabouttheinnocentvictims? [] ThebuildingwheretheCarmeaux Company haditsoffices was inhabitedonlybythe bourgeois; hencetherewouldbe no innocentvictims. Thewhole of thebourgeoisielivesbytheexploitation of theunfortunate, and shouldexpiateitscrimestogether (Emile Henry) Socialresponsibility?

    17. Ismereprofitingreallyenough? Is a baby bornsilverspoon in mouth a legitimatetarget? Do actions and omissionsweighequally? Socialresponsibility?

    18. Are terroristmotivesnecessarilypolitical? Cantheybereligious? Orcriminal? Shouldwetreat all (political) goalsthesame? Ifnot, bywhatstandard do wedistinguish and howdoesitaffectouroverallassessment of terrorism? Motivation Cf. TrotskyarguingagainstKautsky: terrorcanbeveryefficientagainst a reactionaryclasswhichdoesnotwant to leavethescene of operations. Intimidationis a powerfulweapon of policy, bothinternationally and internally. War, likerevolution, isfoundeduponintimidation. A victorious war, generallyspeaking, destroysonly an insignificantpart of theconqueredarmy, intimidatingtheremainder and breakingtheir will. Therevolutionworks in thesame way: itkillsindividuals, and intimidatesthousands. In thissense, the red terrorisnotdistinguishablefromthearmedinsurrection, thedirectcontinuation of whichitrepresents. (...) You do notunderstandthis, holymen? Weshallexplain to you. Theterror of Tsarism was directedagainsttheproletariat. Thegendarmerie of tsarismthrottledtheworkerswhowerefightingfortheSocialist order. OurEtraordinaryCommissionsshootlandlords, capitalists, and generalswhoarestriving to restorethecapitalist order. Do yougraspthis ... Distinction? Yes? For isCommunistsitisquitesufficient.Cf. TrotskyarguingagainstKautsky: terrorcanbeveryefficientagainst a reactionaryclasswhichdoesnotwant to leavethescene of operations. Intimidationis a powerfulweapon of policy, bothinternationally and internally. War, likerevolution, isfoundeduponintimidation. A victorious war, generallyspeaking, destroysonly an insignificantpart of theconqueredarmy, intimidatingtheremainder and breakingtheir will. Therevolutionworks in thesame way: itkillsindividuals, and intimidatesthousands. In thissense, the red terrorisnotdistinguishablefromthearmedinsurrection, thedirectcontinuation of whichitrepresents. (...) You do notunderstandthis, holymen? Weshallexplain to you. Theterror of Tsarism was directedagainsttheproletariat. Thegendarmerie of tsarismthrottledtheworkerswhowerefightingfortheSocialist order. OurEtraordinaryCommissionsshootlandlords, capitalists, and generalswhoarestriving to restorethecapitalist order. Do yougraspthis ... Distinction? Yes? For isCommunistsitisquitesufficient.

    19. Consequentialistapproaches: An actionis to bejudgedsolely on thebasis of itsconsequences (R.M. Hare, K. Nielsen) Kai Nielsen (Marxist Canadian philosopher): terroristacts must bejustifiedbytheirpoliticaleffects and theirmoralconsequences. Theyarejustified: (1) whentheyarepoliticallyeffectiveweapons in therevolutionarystruggle and (2) when, everythingconsidered, therearesoundreasonsforbelievingthat, bytheuse of that type of violenceratherthan no violence at all orviolence of someother type, there will belessinjustice, suffering and degradation in theworldthanwouldotherwisehavebeenthecase - Trotsky Justificatoryconsiderations

    20. Consequentialistobjections: Nicholas Fotionarguesthatmoreisneededfor a consequentialistjustification. Itmustbeshownthat: (1) the end desiredis good enough to justifythemeans, (2) the end will indeedbeachievedthroughact of terrorism, and (3) thatthe end cannotbeachieved in anyother way thatismorally and otherwiselesscostly Justificatoryconsiderations

    21. Fotionsargumentwouldberejectedbymanyotherconsequentialists: If an actionimprovesthesituationitisjustified on classicallyconsequentialistterms. Fotionfails to showwhyweneed to chosethecourse of actionthatbringsaboutthegreatestimprovementpossible. Justificatoryconsiderations

    22. Non-consequentialistobjections: Consequentialismmayoverlookindividualrights (cf. theorgandonorcase) Itisoftenunclearwhichkinds of consequencesareallowed to enterthecalculus. Is an abstractideaenoughor do weneed to look at settledpreferences? Isagent-relativityreallydesirable? Justificatoryconsiderations

    23. Whyiscertaintyneeded? Example: Withoutanyintervention 10.000 members of an unfairlyopressedgroup will die of hungerwithcertainty. A terroristactkilling 100 innocentpeoplefromtheprivilegedclassmaytriggerpoliticalchange, whichcould with a probability of 1 % - avoidthisoutcome. Istheactionjustified? Canthesmallchance of rescuingmanyjustifythecertaindeath of others? Justificatoryconsiderations

    24. Distributive Justice: Advocate: Virginia Held Deontologicalprinciple: iuscommutativa (cf. Aristotle) Central claim: Ifwe must haverightsviolations, a moreequitabledistribution of such violationsisbetterthan a lessequitabledistribution Non-consequentialistapproaches

    25. Problems: Treats human rights as grouprights, notindividualrights Distributive argumentmakessenseonly in a zerosumgame. Beyondthatitbecomes a callforretribution. However: Whyshould I beheldresponsiblefor an injustice I havedonenothing to bring about? (Cf. discussionconcerningcollectiveresponsibility) Non-consequentialistapproaches

    26. State of emergency Principaladvocates: Michael Walzer, Igor Primoratz, Uwe Steinhoff Basic claim: Individualrightscanonlybeoverridden in extreme situations. Thus, terrorismagainstnon-combatantsisonlyeverjustifiedwhentheseconditionsare met. Non-consequentialistapproaches ..

    27. Whatqualifies as a state of emergency: M. Walzer: Supreme emergency; Threat to thesurvival and freedom of politicalcommunitieswhosemembersshare a way of life, developedbytheirancestors, to bepassed on to theirchildren I. Primoratz: Moral disaster; rare circumstances of genocideorethniccleansing Non-consequentialistapproaches

    28. Problems: Opaquecriteria Whyshouldgrouprightsbutnotindividualrightsjustify just drasticmeasures? Hypotheticalscenario I: A criminalholds 50 kindergardenershostagethreatening to kill them. His demandscannotbemetwithinthe time limit. Couldthegovernment (or a parent) abduct his daughter, who has nothing to do withthecrime, and threaten to execute her ifthechildrenarenotreleased? Non-consequentialistapproaches

    29. Problems: Agency and reposibility Hypotheticalscenario II: A criminal has workedtheswitches of a railwaywithouttheknowledge of thetrainconductor. Thetrainisnowrapidlymovingtowards a group of 3 unsuspectingrailwayworkers, whileyouarestanding on a bridgeobservingthescene. Theonlythingyoucan do to save thelives of theworkersisbypushinganotherpersonstandingnext to you off thebridge so thedriver will hitthebreakesbefore he reachestheirposition. Are youjustified in doing so? Non-consequentialistapproaches Thomas Nagel: By intentionally committing evil for the sake of preventing greater evil "I incorporate that evil into what I do: it is my deliberate creation and the reasons stemming from it are magnified and lit up from my own point of view."Thomas Nagel: By intentionally committing evil for the sake of preventing greater evil "I incorporate that evil into what I do: it is my deliberate creation and the reasons stemming from it are magnified and lit up from my own point of view."

    30. C.A.J. Cody, Terrorism, Morality, and SupremeEmergency, 114 (4) Ethics (2004) F.M. Kamm, Terrorism and IntendingEvil, 36 Philosophy and Public Affairs 157 (2008) L.K. McPherson, IsTerrorismDistinctivelyWrong, 117 Ethics 524 (2007) I. Primoratz, A Philosopher Looks At ContemporaryTerrorism, 29 CardozoLawReview 33 (2007/08) J. Waldron, Terrorism and theUse of Terror, 8 Ethics 5 (2004) Furtherreading

More Related