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
• Kants 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 (Arrows
  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 countrys 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)
• Arrows 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 Oppenheims 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 Arrows
  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. Everyones 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 arent 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 Lockes
  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 dont 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
  dont 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.