Morality of Nation-States

Transcription

1 Morality of Nation-States Walzer, chapter 4 Crime of Aggression Aggression is only a crime if nationstates have moral standing. If we could invade and improve nation x, why might it still be wrong? Nations have two main rights: political sovereignty and territorial integrity. These are ultimately rights of individual persons. Why? What rights? Common Life The moral standing of any particular state depends upon the reality of the common life it protects (p. 54) If no common life exists [or state doesn t defend it], its own defense may have no moral justification. What is common life of America? Are French-speakers part of Canadian common life? Are Palestinians part of Israeli common life? Are Christians part of Iran s common life? Does Serbia s common life include Albanian Muslims? Would Kosovar s include Serbs? Are Kurds (non-arabs) part of Iraq s common life? What about minorities? 1

2 Land Why do states have a right of territorial integrity? (Walzer: not property ownership ) The land follows the people Agree with Sidgwick (p. 56): an original conquest may acquire a moral basis? any attempt to recover [lost land] aggression US? Israel? Australia? New Zealand? Old Soviet control over Baltics, Poland, etc.? Mubarak Awad quote. Original sins. How to Resolve Land Disputes Conquest of empty land not aggression What if land thinly populated? Hobbes: okay for conquerors to constrain natives to inhabit closer together as long as they are not killed Walzer: their common life cannot be destroyed either (p. 57) Legalist Paradigm / Domestic Analogy Parallel of states to individuals Aggression a crime, but no international police: police powers distributed among all the rights of the state must be vindicated. (p. 59) Just war: repel and punish aggressor. Walzer footnote p. 59: ignoring nonviolent resistance (pacifism). OK or flaw? Walzer rejects sea slug analogy. Nations are not inevitably predators. Moral CHOICE. 2

3 Six Principles 1. There exists international society of states 2. Each state has right of territorial integrity and political sovereignty (rooted in rights of persons) 3. Aggression (use or imminent threat of force ) a criminal act 4. Aggression justifies self-defense by victim or others who come to aid 5. Only justification for war is aggression (to be modified) 6. Aggressor can also be punished Why punish? Who can be punished? Apply to action against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait Three Issues Does Walzer give sufficient weight to pacifist responses? (War is last resort, but how intensely and long must non-violent responses be tried?) Does Walzer ignore minorities within nation-states? What revisions needed when aggressor is not a state? Walzer (p. 59): when fighting breaks out, there must always be some state against which the law can and should be enforced. [my emphasis] Extent of Domestic Analogy End of chapter: an intellectual tool Needed revisions to come in future chapters Basic moral principle holds: we want to live in an international society where communities of men and women freely shape their separate destinies [p. 72; my emphasis] 3

4 Response to Objections Bismarck: mistake to think of acts of state analogous to civil society Marx denies rights of states but then appeals to them Justice, Power, and Prudence If attacked, it s just to resist. Walzer: presumption of resistance (Of course, war a last resort) But prudence (national self-interest) may dictate appeasement to power. Vann: one should agree to terms less than fully just to avoid war unless it implies surrender once and for all to rule of violence. Munich principle. But appeasement at Munich often judged shameful as a surrender to [Nazi] evil, Appeasement Might there be a duty to seek peace at the expense of justice unless surrender once and for all to the rule of violence? What accommodation should be made to brute power (e.g., for Palestinians today)? Why does Walzer praise Finnish resistance? Munich principle would concede loss or erosion of independence for the sake of the survival of individual men and women When is this kind of prudential adjustment to power OK? 4

5 Chapter 5: Anticipations Legalist paradigm justifies response only to aggression or imminent threat When is it morally justified to fight earlier? Two Extreme Standards Rejected Preventive War Fight early before balance of power shifts Enemy s augmentation of power Boastful ranting Instant, overwhelming necessity Webster This is what legalist paradigm seems to require Could respond to attack only once we had seen it coming Walzer: sufficient threat Not mere provocations but threats Must be engaged in harming us Sufficient threat includes (p. 81) Manifest intent to injure Degree of active preparation that makes intent a positive danger Waiting greatly magnifies the risk 5

6 Sufficient Threat NOT ENOUGH Previous signs of rapacity and ambition Enlargement of power Refusal of future securities NEEDED Current and particular signs Actual preparation for war Intensification of present danger Was Saddam s Iraq a Sufficient Threat? Previous possession and use of weapons of mass destruction (e.g., against Kurds) Some evidence of current programs for weapons of mass destruction (WMD s) Hostility to US, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel Possibility of giving WMD s to terrorist groups. How likely? Not likely Radical Islamist groups historically enemies of Saddam Likely The enemy of my enemy is my friend 6