Theories of International Ethics

1. Theories of International Ethics How can we judge leaders’ actions?

2. I. Bases of ethics • Consequentialism: Right and wrong depend on consequences of our actions. Examples: • Constrained choice (practical necessity): We can be excused when the consequences of any other choice would be to prevent us from making further choices. (Analogy: a gun to your head). • Utilitarianism: Greatest good for the greatest number. • Deontology: Certain acts are right or wrong regardless of consequences • Argument from divine revelation: Certain acts prohibited by moral law even though no punishment/consequences • Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act only when you want your behavior to become a universal law

3. II. Goals: National vs. Global Interests • National Interest: Sometimes incoherent (Arrow’s Theorem) but probably includes physical and economic security • Implication: Governments should value own citizens’ welfare above welfare of others • Problems: • Identifying long-term national interest is hard or even impossible • National interests may conflict  creates opposing moral duties. Implies… • Your country’s national interest must be defended as a moral goal – but this rules out objective arguments from a hypothetical “original position”

4. B. The global interest: Everyone is equal • Implication: Equal moral weight to every life • Problems: • Requires governments to sacrifice their own people (and people to sacrifice themselves) for the good of others (self-detachment) • Arrow’s theorem undercuts the idea of the “global interest” as a set of policies. Instead, limit to focus of “all are equal”

5. III. Four Views of International Ethics

6. A. Practical Necessity • Felix Oppenheim’s Argument: • Morality implies choice – to say that a state should take Action A instead of Action B is to imply that it does indeed have a choice. • Practical necessity makes morality irrelevant – Even if a state has a choice between Actions A and B, if it faces extinction if it pursues Action B, then it is practically necessary for it to pursue Action A • National interest is necessary goal – States that fail to pursue the national interest get eaten by those that do  critical step: does this happen? • It is not rational to oppose something that is practically necessary, since no genuine choice exists.

7. 2. Implications of Practical Necessity • Recommending national interest: Redundant • Opposing it: Irrational • Goals compatible with national interest: • Only one effective means available: Support redundant, opposition irrational. • Several effective means available: Morality comes into play. • Some means more effective than others: irrational to oppose the more effective means and redundant to oppose the less effective means. (If something is necessary, then it must be pursued using the best means at hand.) • Several equally effective means available: Moral choice exists

8. 3. Problems with Practical Necessity • If true, the theory is useless: If truly necessary, all states will at all times follow national interest. • National Interest can be incoherent: Arrow’s Theorem • Is risk morally equivalent to certainty? Very few choices involve certain death. Is every risk to be avoided? • Mixed evidence on necessity of national interest • Assumes existence is its own purpose: Do societies exist to promote any particular value or way of life?

9. III. Four Views of International Ethics

10. B. Utilitarianism • Fundamental principle: Greatest good for the greatest number. Everyone’s happiness counts equally. • Variant (John Rawls): Reason from a “original position” behind a “veil of ignorance.” Assume decisions must be made without knowing your own place in the world. Which world do you want to live in? Rawls: Would choose world that protects the weak.

11. 3. Problems with Utilitarianism • Vagueness – “The greatest good” is even more problematic than “national interest” • Incorrect calculations can justify anything – Examples: economic benefits and social stability used to justify slavery, hegemonic stability theory • Distributive justice – Utilitarianism allows us to treat people unfairly for the benefit of others (kill half and give their stuff to the rest, cutting pollution in the process). Rawls does avoid this problem… • Denies state sovereignty – States aren’t happy or unhappy, only people are – so sovereignty is meaningless.

12. III. Four Views of International Ethics

13. C. Social Contract • Fundamental principle: Treat people as ends and not merely means, regardless of consequences (derived from Kant) • Legitimacy: Government power is moral if and only if exercised by consent of people (taken from Locke and Kant) • Theft is wrong: Treats people as means to an end

14. 2. Implications • Government must serve national interest – will of the people determines right and wrong for their government • Defense is moral – Consent can be inferred for the continued survival of the people • Reject foreign aid and charity – Taxing (theft) some to help others is wrong. Treats people as means rather than ends. Remember, consequences irrelevant! • All lives are not equal under legitimate law – each government exists to promote the welfare of a limited group, not everyone

15. 3. Problems with the Social Contract • Confuses consent to government with consent to each government act: People may agree to be bound by a process that sometimes harms them • Logically precludes all social welfare within the state as well as without • May require government to treat foreigners as means to the end of domestic happiness • Problems with national interest (disagreement) can create need for secrecy  but lying to citizens violates Kantian principles and Locke’s idea of legitimate consent of the people!

16. III. Four Views of International Ethics

17. D. International Moral Norms • Fundamental principle: Categorical Imperative (Behave in ways that you think others should behave) • Implications. Depends on system, but if we assume law is necessary to live together, then: • Negotiate international laws • Follow them once negotiated • Two wrongs don’t make a right – noncompliance by others does not end the moral force of law • Do the right thing even when no law exists

18. 3. Problems with International Moral Norms • New state dilemma – Why obey rules to which the state never consented? • Changing state dilemma – Stronger states want to revoke consent to rules that protect the weak • Legal indeterminacy – Law frequently contradicts itself • No justification for sovereignty – Why not a single world government, if supra-national rules are superior? • Basis for law is left unresolved: Consent, “Natural Law,” Philosophy, Religion?

19. IV. The Content of International Law • International Norms – Unwritten principles that states usually claim to follow • Jus ad Bellum – The law of Just War • Right authority – War must be authorized (by a state?) • Right intention – Aim of war is to re-establish just peace, not narrow self-interest • Reasonable Hope – Victory possible • Proportionality – Means must be proportional to both ends and provocation • Last Resort – War is costly, so should be last resort

20. 2. Humanitarian Intervention • Original scope: Rescue own citizens • Expanded concept: Rescue others from danger • Limits: Excludes regime change or territorial acquisition as means. Protect using minimum necessary force.

21. B. From Norms to Law • Statutory international law: Treaties • Customary international law • A certain legal practice is observed • It is generally regarded as binding (often disputed) • Examples: Diplomatic immunity, Law of the Sea, Prohibitions of slavery and genocide (all regarded as binding prior to treaties)

22. C. The International Law of War • War is prohibited by Kellogg-Briand Pact…

23. Kellogg-Briand Pact (1929) • ARTICLE I: The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. • ARTICLE II: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

24. C. The International Law of War • War is prohibited by Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter…

25. UN Charter • Article II, paragraph 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

26. C. The International Law of War • War is prohibited by Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter except… • Right of Self-Defense (Article 51 of UN Charter)…

27. Article 51 Exceptions • Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

28. C. The International Law of War • War is prohibited by Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter except… • Right of Self-Defense (Article 51 of UN Charter) – limited to response to armed aggression until Security Council can deal with the situation. Requires notification of the Security Council

29. b. Anticipatory Self-Defense: The Caroline Test (Customary) • During the unsuccessful rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada, against British rule, the British seized the US ship Caroline. In an exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, then U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster outlined a framework for self-defense which did not require a prior attack. Military response to a threat was judged permissible so long as the danger posed was • “instant, • overwhelming, • leaving no choice of means and • no moment of deliberation.“

30. c. Military enforcement of international law • Requires approval of UN Security Council • Only Security Council has authority to enforce its resolutions unless resolution states otherwise – i.e. Pakistan cannot attack India over Kashmir, Arab states cannot invade Israel to enforce partition

31. The UN Charter Procedures • Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. • Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

32. c. Military enforcement of international law • Requires approval of UN Security Council • Only Security Council has authority to enforce its resolutions unless resolution states otherwise – i.e. Pakistan cannot attack India over Kashmir, Arab states cannot invade Israel to enforce partition • Precedent: • UN Resolution 573: The UN Security Council condemned Israel on a 15-0 vote (US abstaining) in 1985, after Israel bombed PLO camps in Tripoli -- attacking a state which merely hosted terrorists, as opposed to actually committing acts of aggression itself

33. 2. General principles of the Laws of War • Discrimination: Means used must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. • No rule of reciprocity – legally, two wrongs don’t make a right. • Military necessity balancing test – If a weapon has adverse consequences (ie harms civilians directly or indirectly) then it should only be used where it will make a large difference in the war effort. • Proportionality: Means used must be proportional to ends achieved. In general, a disproportionate response (i.e. full-scale invasion in response to a diplomatic slight) is illegal.