TRANSKRİPT 🔗
1
00:00:00,470 --> 00:00:06,430
You. Welcome, everybody. My name is Cheney Ryan.
2
00:00:06,450 --> 00:00:16,350
I'm a fellow of the Program on Ethics, Law and Conflict, as well as for the other part of the year, a professor of law at the University of Oregon.
3
00:00:17,820 --> 00:00:28,800
It is our great privilege to have Professor Dean Chatterjee here today, who is a distinguished professor at the law school at the University of Utah,
4
00:00:30,060 --> 00:00:36,090
and who, among his other accomplishments has just published a book on the ethics of preventive war.
5
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:41,400
I should say it's a special treat for me to introduce Dean.
6
00:00:42,900 --> 00:00:46,500
I've known him for many years in America.
7
00:00:47,130 --> 00:00:52,830
Some of us date things by relating to which country America had invaded most recently,
8
00:00:53,880 --> 00:00:59,280
and I met Dean somewhere in between the invasion of Grenada and the invasion of Panama.
9
00:00:59,290 --> 00:01:07,799
So that was quite a while ago. But Dean has always been someone who I've greatly admired as someone who not only works on war,
10
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:13,260
but works on a lot of other issues too, including global poverty, global justice, etc.
11
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:17,129
Dean will talk to us for 25 or 30 minutes.
12
00:01:17,130 --> 00:01:24,600
And then David Roden, also from Iraq, will do some comments and then we will follow that with discussion from everybody.
13
00:01:24,960 --> 00:01:32,370
DEAN Thank you, John, for this very kind introduction.
14
00:01:33,270 --> 00:01:37,710
My voice is almost gone, but it's still audible.
15
00:01:38,190 --> 00:01:45,719
I've been travelling a lot and the last leg of my flight had been a long one and that's when something must have happened.
16
00:01:45,720 --> 00:01:50,190
But hopefully if I speak slowly, [INAUDIBLE] be able to hear me.
17
00:01:50,200 --> 00:02:02,070
So that's why, based on David's suggestion, I made my draft much shorter.
18
00:02:02,700 --> 00:02:07,979
I should not want to inquire non-stop boring reading with this voice,
19
00:02:07,980 --> 00:02:17,430
but interruption with more informal chatting and more room for my David to respond to any to comment.
20
00:02:17,430 --> 00:02:25,770
And of course, I'm eager to hear from you. My book, The Ethics of Preventive War, just came out,
21
00:02:26,100 --> 00:02:33,180
got released in the United States last week and maybe here in this country two weeks before that.
22
00:02:34,020 --> 00:02:44,320
And this is an important book on this current big controversy on the permissibility of preventive war.
23
00:02:45,090 --> 00:02:51,810
Oh, of course not. The one that came out not that long ago is Henry.
24
00:02:52,230 --> 00:02:56,610
Henry and David's book on prevention and prevention.
25
00:02:57,180 --> 00:03:04,830
That's quite well known, of course. So here, of course, I'll be slighting Henry on something that you will get to see.
26
00:03:05,310 --> 00:03:11,430
But basically what I am planning to do in a short focussed format is instead of going
27
00:03:11,430 --> 00:03:16,650
through all the details of all the scholars and authors of what they have said,
28
00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:27,629
oh, how they have been developing their ideas, where their flaws are and all that, that's going to be extremely boring and tedious.
29
00:03:27,630 --> 00:03:36,090
And for that, of course, you can you can read the ideas either in this book, in my writing site and in any other place,
30
00:03:36,510 --> 00:03:49,200
I've tried to give you my response as to where I would like to take this debate on preventive war in view of the current problems of international,
31
00:03:50,820 --> 00:04:02,610
international law, ethics and issues are basically how I see it is this this idea of preventive war.
32
00:04:04,350 --> 00:04:15,920
There has been some talk that due to the current nature of warfare in the 21st century,
33
00:04:16,560 --> 00:04:22,560
there is obviously the blurring of the distinction between pre-emption and prevention,
34
00:04:23,460 --> 00:04:31,810
and that made our attitude toward preventive war a bit more open, along with other things that I would mention.
35
00:04:32,430 --> 00:04:38,520
There has also been the other side that is getting more and more prominent, and I'm part of that.
36
00:04:38,700 --> 00:04:50,820
That side, which is that preventive war, it's permissibility are allows more war and less peace.
37
00:04:51,360 --> 00:04:59,880
I don't want to make it just in sort of a crass utilitarian sense as to what's wrong with prevent war in case there is real.
38
00:04:59,970 --> 00:05:11,190
Big need for preventive war. We have to see how in a rather ethical and constrained manner, perhaps we can leave some limited scope for that.
39
00:05:11,610 --> 00:05:20,730
I would like to show that even if only we leave some limited scope for that, it can get out of control and out of hand very easily.
40
00:05:21,240 --> 00:05:30,390
And so what is the way to go about it? I would like to show that we have to devise some other ways where instead of preventive intervention,
41
00:05:30,840 --> 00:05:39,720
perhaps we should go for a different paradigm, which I have dubbed preventive on intervention, preventive non-intervention.
42
00:05:40,330 --> 00:05:51,540
And what exactly is that? Part of the idea of this just peace theory, just peace theory, that this idea of starting from the just war paradigm,
43
00:05:52,050 --> 00:06:05,400
if we start with the just peace paradigm, we would not get to this routine nor lead toward preventive intervention.
44
00:06:07,020 --> 00:06:15,360
It would be somewhere where we find that preventive intervention is getting almost the need for that is almost redundant.
45
00:06:15,810 --> 00:06:20,040
If we start with this just peace approach. What exactly is this approach?
46
00:06:20,340 -->
Load full transcript
00:06:31,620
I would like to develop it a little bit here. Of course, we had ideas on some of these issues for a long, long time, for the last 25, 30 years.
47
00:06:32,100 --> 00:06:35,880
We know how in-depth the reactor his ideas are.
48
00:06:36,780 --> 00:06:43,800
I David also is a critic of preventive war, and I have so much sympathy for his views.
49
00:06:44,220 --> 00:06:50,160
So hopefully between our two views or two sides, something cohesive will emerge.
50
00:06:50,910 --> 00:06:57,270
So I may have to sit down to take a look at this computer, but hopefully I'll be loud enough.
51
00:06:57,690 --> 00:07:00,930
Loud enough that you get to understand me.
52
00:07:01,500 --> 00:07:06,030
Okay. So and I'll be stopping from time to time, too,
53
00:07:06,180 --> 00:07:15,060
to make myself more clear and discern the certainty factor, the certainty factor of an imminent danger.
54
00:07:16,020 --> 00:07:22,920
Debated considerably in the just war tradition is now put to severe test.
55
00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:28,290
In view of in view of the challenges of today's warfare.
56
00:07:29,250 --> 00:07:33,000
This this most certainty factor of an imminent danger.
57
00:07:33,390 --> 00:07:36,470
How do we measure it and when should do it?
58
00:07:36,490 --> 00:07:39,930
What should we respond to it? Okay,
59
00:07:40,380 --> 00:07:48,750
so this blurring of the blurring this blurring of the distinction between pre-emption and prevention in
60
00:07:48,750 --> 00:07:58,200
matters of peace and security seems to have contributed to a more open attitude toward preventive war.
61
00:07:59,040 --> 00:08:08,339
Scholars also point out that the permissive interpretation of preventive measures can be found
62
00:08:08,340 --> 00:08:19,230
in the later just war tradition of gotchas and halts as part of reasonable self-defence,
63
00:08:20,100 --> 00:08:33,330
and also in Chapter seven of the United Nations Charter pertaining to the Security Council in matters of international peace and security.
64
00:08:33,930 --> 00:08:43,530
That's one side which seems to claim that sovereignty and non-intervention might be the accepted norms in international law,
65
00:08:44,310 --> 00:08:55,290
but stipulated measures suggestive of preventive intervention are permissible with Security Council authorisation.
66
00:08:56,040 --> 00:09:03,290
Thus. Making preventive war legal under current international law.
67
00:09:03,710 --> 00:09:09,560
That's one side. In fact, even here, we have, of course, controversy.
68
00:09:09,890 --> 00:09:13,340
For example, David Brody has very much to play.
69
00:09:13,350 --> 00:09:15,889
Not even forget about preventive war.
70
00:09:15,890 --> 00:09:24,110
Even when it comes to ending war, it's not that clear that international law allows into war even for get up and prevent war.
71
00:09:25,310 --> 00:09:27,080
So that's, of course, okay.
72
00:09:27,770 --> 00:09:40,940
But the other side that tends to question this idea of a more broader attitude, a more permissive attitude toward an not toward preventive war,
73
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:50,479
are leading to a broader type of military engagement in the name of self-defence and in rare
74
00:09:50,480 --> 00:09:58,700
cases now for the so-called rescue rescue wars or the humanitarian military intervention.
75
00:09:59,690 --> 00:10:03,260
Okay. The other side goes something like this,
76
00:10:03,740 --> 00:10:15,200
that the provision of preventive war in self-defence can get unduly interventionist, making the world less secure.
77
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:26,800
The world needs a justice based approach that addresses the underlying causes of global tension and crisis.
78
00:10:27,890 --> 00:10:44,870
Deprivation and humiliation. Deprivation and humiliation in our inequitable global order are the two chief reasons for tension and resentment.
79
00:10:45,560 --> 00:11:02,330
Creating hostilities, confronting deprivation through economic development and responding to humiliation through political recognition
80
00:11:02,870 --> 00:11:15,380
would go a long way toward mitigating tension and resentment and diminishing the global democracy deficit.
81
00:11:15,770 --> 00:11:17,960
I'll comment on that a bit more, don't you?
82
00:11:19,010 --> 00:11:27,860
Studies have shown that non-military measures can be more effective in confronting terrorism than military actions,
83
00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:31,250
which may even prove to be counterproductive.
84
00:11:32,180 --> 00:11:47,419
Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has famously observed that the ingredients of enduring
85
00:11:47,420 --> 00:11:58,490
global security lie not necessarily in deploying a nation's military force for global safekeeping,
86
00:11:58,700 --> 00:12:09,860
but more importantly in promoting just development and comprehensive human rights.
87
00:12:10,980 --> 00:12:16,820
Well, look, this gets a bit off my view. I'm just coming to old ink so that I can get to the gist of it.
88
00:12:17,180 --> 00:12:34,280
My view that countries should promote prevention in non-interventionist terms by relying on the soft power of diplomacy and collaboration.
89
00:12:35,570 --> 00:12:38,780
This is the path toward just peace.
90
00:12:39,110 --> 00:12:45,590
Just peace, which I promote as the antidote to preventive war.
91
00:12:46,490 --> 00:12:54,290
If we do not place a principle premium on it, on a proactive and comprehensive,
92
00:12:54,890 --> 00:13:03,410
non-interventionist policy of just peace, then the option of preventive war.
93
00:13:03,920 --> 00:13:11,840
However, a constraint could gain undue legitimacy leading to more war, not less.
94
00:13:12,830 --> 00:13:24,380
The idea of just peace relies on the global project of democratic governments collaborative global political order.
95
00:13:25,010 --> 00:13:32,540
Let me just use one recent example, an application from New York Times.
96
00:13:33,110 --> 00:13:44,720
As you put from New York Times, it was Yadlin, the former Amos Yadlin, the former chief of Israeli military intelligence,
97
00:13:46,040 --> 00:13:55,340
via commenting on a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
98
00:13:55,820 --> 00:14:10,350
Now it's got. Mr. Obama will have to shift the Israeli defence establishment's thinking from a focus on the zone of immunity,
99
00:14:10,950 --> 00:14:19,470
as he calls it, to a zone of trust, to a zone of trust, unquote.
100
00:14:19,860 --> 00:14:31,890
However he can choose, however he constitutes the zone of trust in terms of preventive and military intervention.
101
00:14:32,370 --> 00:14:45,930
He writes, quote, What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that that if Israel refrains from acting
102
00:14:46,290 --> 00:14:53,909
in its own window of opportunity to justice in the interest of saving for passage,
103
00:14:53,910 --> 00:14:56,040
you have to share it this way so that he can hopefully.
104
00:14:57,930 --> 00:15:05,030
However, he constrains the open quote zone of trust, close quote, in terms of preventive military intervention.
105
00:15:05,100 --> 00:15:11,489
He writes, open quote, What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from
106
00:15:11,490 --> 00:15:15,930
acting in its own window of opportunity and all other options have failed,
107
00:15:16,200 --> 00:15:22,260
Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.
108
00:15:22,350 --> 00:15:30,330
Close quote. In contrast to this expanded just war military approach, my idea of just peace would construe the,
109
00:15:30,720 --> 00:15:34,830
quote zone of trust in terms of preventive non-intervention,
110
00:15:35,820 --> 00:15:41,730
creating a zone of trust among nations through a collaborative, proactive approach with an emphasis on recognition,
111
00:15:41,970 --> 00:15:47,070
syslog and assistance makes the need for preventive military measures obsolete.
112
00:15:50,490 --> 00:15:57,240
The gradual move in this direction is the move towards just peace, which I have dubbed dubbed preventive non-intervention.
113
00:15:57,690 --> 00:16:05,130
Unlike the principled anti-interventionist arguments of the pacifist, this stance is anti-interventionist in a contingent sense.
114
00:16:05,610 --> 00:16:08,610
It is not necessarily against intervention per say.
115
00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:15,959
As, for instance, when intervention is the only option for pre-emptive reasons, it is against the way it is usually.
116
00:16:15,960 --> 00:16:21,510
It usually takes place or against its feasibility in a complicated and interdependent world.
117
00:16:23,070 --> 00:16:30,090
But this limited provision for pre-emption, when construed on the premise of just peace but not just war as argued above,
118
00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:37,620
would not provide the moral mandate and the slippery transition to preventive military measures in the name of peace and security.
119
00:16:38,430 --> 00:16:44,159
In other words, a just peace approach sanctifies the traditional Augustinian just will ban on
120
00:16:44,160 --> 00:16:48,850
anticipatory military measures in a way that the premise of just war cannot.
121
00:16:49,620 --> 00:16:53,700
A just peace initiative allows measured military response if needed,
122
00:16:53,970 --> 00:17:01,110
as the only option for self-defence or humanitarian reasons, either after an attack has occurred or when an attack is imminent.
123
00:17:01,380 --> 00:17:07,920
In the strictest sense of imminence require an interception when the offence is evidently erected.
124
00:17:08,190 --> 00:17:18,090
Arab irrevocable. I share Kant's critique of Grootes and Vettel's doctrine of just war, and the doctrines provide the pretext for justifying wars.
125
00:17:18,570 --> 00:17:23,219
My idea of global democracy as the Foundation for Peace is quite similar to Kant's
126
00:17:23,220 --> 00:17:28,200
vision of global of a global federation of Democratic or Republican states,
127
00:17:28,860 --> 00:17:33,120
like a universal civil society held together for peace and collective security,
128
00:17:33,120 --> 00:17:37,440
where each state retains all its sovereign rights except in the right to wage war.
129
00:17:38,340 --> 00:17:43,800
In such a justice based global democracy that strides towards inclusion, participation and empowerment.
130
00:17:44,250 --> 00:17:51,570
No member state would be considered an outlaw state. Hence, there would be no rogue states that can be targeted for preventive military strikes.
131
00:17:52,200 --> 00:18:01,649
This democratic global order would vastly increase the prospect of internal democratic reform within states in a peaceful manner a peaceful,
132
00:18:01,650 --> 00:18:05,190
sorry and peaceful manner with initiatives generated by the states themselves
133
00:18:05,490 --> 00:18:09,090
because of the privilege of recognition and membership in the global body.
134
00:18:09,330 --> 00:18:14,110
They would not like to compromise this position through failure, granting democratic rights to citizens.
135
00:18:14,610 --> 00:18:20,309
For inept states, they would be held from a common pool of funds for development assistance and building stable
136
00:18:20,310 --> 00:18:25,630
institutions without coercive conditions attached in such a collaborative global order.
137
00:18:25,650 --> 00:18:32,670
The rhetoric of military intervention for imposing democracy from without would ring hollow also.
138
00:18:32,700 --> 00:18:37,349
The idea of military strike against a group of subversive non-state actors in remote
139
00:18:37,350 --> 00:18:42,090
areas who are about to be shipping lethal virus for rape for release in populated areas.
140
00:18:42,610 --> 00:18:48,240
Alan Buchanan's hypothetical scenario for justifying preventive intervention would be an empty argument.
141
00:18:48,900 --> 00:18:55,110
If the actors are domestic terrorists, then the question of intervention in a sovereign state does not arise.
142
00:18:55,350 --> 00:19:03,080
And if they had known foreign terrorists. Then in a collaborative global order, the idea of intervention goes against the thrust of collaboration.
143
00:19:04,520 --> 00:19:08,330
There are numerous collaborative avenues for responding to such distant threats.
144
00:19:09,040 --> 00:19:12,050
A few comments. Just. Just passage.
145
00:19:13,130 --> 00:19:20,900
To not let becoming bitter about some of the ideas that we find in some of these authors.
146
00:19:21,980 --> 00:19:27,530
I did mention the idea for Rogue State. That's David Luban and David Luban.
147
00:19:28,100 --> 00:19:33,110
He has been writing important stuff on preventive war.
148
00:19:33,620 --> 00:19:38,600
He's very much against the idea in general of preventive intervention.
149
00:19:39,410 --> 00:19:45,200
But he makes a rather small.
150
00:19:45,830 --> 00:19:51,500
So he calls it small exception of intervention.
151
00:19:52,190 --> 00:20:03,710
Action in the case of a so-called rogue state, when there is imminent or obvious danger coming from that lawless state.
152
00:20:04,760 --> 00:20:12,560
Okay. Now, the problem is this. The global order is so tilted and so inequitable.
153
00:20:13,550 --> 00:20:24,170
It's very easy, as we know quite often, that powerful states or coalition of powerful states can easily, for the sake of global heads.
154
00:20:24,410 --> 00:20:35,960
They can target weaker states to try to find ways to intervene there, to control them, which has been happening quite often.
155
00:20:36,500 --> 00:20:48,200
It can never happen the other way round, even though we know that it's not the case that no type of threat happens from the point of view,
156
00:20:48,680 --> 00:20:52,610
from the sight of two powerful states to the involvement of the states.
157
00:20:53,060 --> 00:21:05,930
But it's always the case that the powerful states to target development states often in the name of the rhetoric of rogue states.
158
00:21:06,290 --> 00:21:12,380
Now it is this way, even when it comes to terrorism.
159
00:21:12,410 --> 00:21:17,850
Think about it. That's also a political rhetoric and propaganda district.
160
00:21:18,290 --> 00:21:22,820
Political rhetoric. Why so? Well, think about it.
161
00:21:23,660 --> 00:21:41,719
When just a few powerful states control the rest of the world through their military power for the sake of getting global resources,
162
00:21:41,720 --> 00:21:45,530
moving in their direction, uninterrupted on their terms.
163
00:21:46,250 --> 00:21:49,190
And they would like to maintain that status and privilege.
164
00:21:51,860 --> 00:22:00,500
By even using military means if needed, and without the United Nations Security Council approval,
165
00:22:01,730 --> 00:22:12,140
if they find it necessary, then the whole idea of who the terrorist states are and who are the who the rogue states are,
166
00:22:12,650 --> 00:22:20,180
that gets to be rather vague as we know or seems like it's a form of global terrorism
167
00:22:20,540 --> 00:22:28,370
that often the vulnerable states are held hostage by the power of the powerful states.
168
00:22:28,940 --> 00:22:39,080
Given this theme, then the question is not if Luban, David Luban leaves open the provision of the rogue state,
169
00:22:39,560 --> 00:22:44,750
that doesn't end up being a very small exception, as you like to put it.
170
00:22:45,080 --> 00:22:53,510
It could open up the room for all types of excuses for intervention.
171
00:22:54,230 --> 00:23:02,299
The way I want to show it here, that we have this idea of preventive non-intervention and down the road,
172
00:23:02,300 --> 00:23:13,220
I explained that a little bit more in the sense of just peace in a collaborative global order of inclusion,
173
00:23:17,060 --> 00:23:20,840
discourse, understanding and health, mutual help.
174
00:23:21,650 --> 00:23:27,770
Then, by definition, the idea of a rogue state is not that it's not just act.
175
00:23:27,800 --> 00:23:40,010
I mean, using or naturally rogue states happened when, as I mentioned at the beginning of this little essay, when there is deprivation,
176
00:23:41,390 --> 00:23:54,170
humiliation, neglect, all that once powerful and resourceful states tend to overcome some of these global inequity.
177
00:23:55,110 --> 00:24:05,630
The whole idea of rogue states where they could be viewed as possible dangerous doesn't that doesn't quite arise in that sense.
178
00:24:05,930 --> 00:24:19,550
So that's David you know I let it become is oh well this way if I get down and we can I'd like to also mention Michael Doyle and Michael Laughlin.
179
00:24:20,000 --> 00:24:26,780
Michael Walzer, early on in his classic restatement of the just war doctrine,
180
00:24:27,590 --> 00:24:40,070
has rather blurred the idea of imminence in what is or what could be an imminent danger.
181
00:24:41,120 --> 00:24:51,440
So much so that often people say that that's an example, perhaps, of intervention rather than pre-emption.
182
00:24:52,190 --> 00:25:00,950
And yet, Michael Walzer is extremely reluctant to call his idea interventionist.
183
00:25:01,430 --> 00:25:05,930
You'd like to use the word pre-emption. All true. So you might do that.
184
00:25:06,350 --> 00:25:07,790
But he has opened that way.
185
00:25:08,660 --> 00:25:17,390
And he, of course, has got to and others to show that he has his total support when it comes to his understanding of the last for doctrine.
186
00:25:18,020 --> 00:25:25,490
But Michael Doyle, in his so-called jurisprudence, Jewish jurisprudence of prevention,
187
00:25:26,660 --> 00:25:45,320
a very carefully articulated doctrine of of of of those rare cases when we may really need to think of prevention because we just can't wait.
188
00:25:46,790 --> 00:26:02,300
And how could
you do it so that something like the fiasco of the Iraq war, in the guise of the so-called Bush doctrine would not happen.
189
00:26:02,930 --> 00:26:06,560
He lays down quite a few procedure issues.
190
00:26:06,920 --> 00:26:11,000
He calls them both substantive and procedural.
191
00:26:11,420 --> 00:26:30,950
And it lists several wonderful lawyers about the the the extent of real danger of international law, of United Nations Security Council and all that.
192
00:26:31,820 --> 00:26:38,150
But it leaves room for unilateralism if needed.
193
00:26:39,470 --> 00:26:50,360
But that also has to be, in his judgement, based on what he calls the jurisprudence of prevention, meaning the carefully construed need.
194
00:26:51,020 --> 00:26:56,130
Do you really present it to the rest of the world that was needed?
195
00:26:56,150 --> 00:27:02,870
That's why the country is going in that direction based on this imminence immediate danger
196
00:27:03,380 --> 00:27:10,400
to its national security or a massacre of some sort in a country where people are helpless.
197
00:27:10,790 --> 00:27:14,960
Now, the point is this the moment goes in that direction.
198
00:27:15,650 --> 00:27:17,090
We understand his concern,
199
00:27:17,090 --> 00:27:27,560
and that's the concern of some of these extremely well-meaning international just folks here as contemporary industrial theorists like Michael Doyle,
200
00:27:28,430 --> 00:27:36,740
David Luban. And I'm getting to other countries shortly where we see that they're caught in this conundrum, in this conflict.
201
00:27:37,160 --> 00:27:48,770
On the one hand, we know that we can not simply promote war mongering and making provision for
202
00:27:49,040 --> 00:27:54,590
preventive war has invariably the inevitable direction of going in that direction.
203
00:27:55,250 --> 00:28:08,030
At the same time, that could be those occasions when unless we act, the consequences could be so catastrophic that it would be a disaster.
204
00:28:08,630 --> 00:28:21,110
In fact, Michael was the early on talks about, in the case of a civil civilizational challenge to our community,
205
00:28:21,500 --> 00:28:30,290
if we let something of this sort, like the Nazi danger to the allied forces happen, we have to respond.
206
00:28:30,650 --> 00:28:35,990
What do we need to know? Let problem is this with Michael Doyle.
207
00:28:36,590 --> 00:28:51,580
When he talks about assessing the severity of danger or finding that it truly passes the test of necessity and all that,
208
00:28:52,370 --> 00:28:58,250
who decides those things if there is a go alone provision in it?
209
00:28:59,120 --> 00:29:14,450
Because as Michael Walzer himself famously said, when it comes to existential threat, there is no such thing as legality.
210
00:29:15,950 --> 00:29:20,560
So it's a matter of, again, subject to an individual assessment.
211
00:29:20,570 --> 00:29:30,610
So a powerful nation, just as we are found all through, especially in recent times with the Bush Doctrine,
212
00:29:30,620 --> 00:29:45,740
even before that and even after George Bush term of practice is still continuing that what is happening is that all countries can,
213
00:29:47,000 --> 00:30:03,200
in the name of the global mandate, need it for its own national security, can claim a global mandate for its policies.
214
00:30:03,530 --> 00:30:08,900
And once we move in that direction, then we get back to where we have been.
215
00:30:09,530 --> 00:30:14,230
And Michael died. And in fact, I've had a conversation back and forth with him on that.
216
00:30:14,690 --> 00:30:24,560
And he is the one who wrote a wonderful endorsement of the book, and he nonetheless mentioned that, I understand you a fair go at everything.
217
00:30:24,830 --> 00:30:35,030
But the reason I tried to construe this jurisprudence of prevention is seriously because of this conundrum that we have to do something.
218
00:30:35,030 --> 00:30:44,180
Otherwise things might get out of hand, but we have to do it in such a careful fashion that it would be extremely limited.
219
00:30:44,600 --> 00:30:47,630
But he says that you are not the first one.
220
00:30:47,960 --> 00:31:01,450
I've been routinely hearing that this has this lead to the potential for something much more drastic, as we have found in the Bush Doctrine,
221
00:31:01,460 --> 00:31:07,280
even though it's the Bush doctrine that he has in mind to make sure that never happens again like that, like the Iraq war.
222
00:31:07,850 --> 00:31:12,260
And that direction is going on with a little bit. It's interesting.
223
00:31:13,010 --> 00:31:21,470
He is coming from the perspective of global justice, not from the perspective of.
224
00:31:23,600 --> 00:31:35,430
Sovereign equality. Sovereign equality that you find in Michael Walzer that you find in, but that you find not all.
225
00:31:35,810 --> 00:31:43,310
Michael Doyle Sovereign equality is a statist approach, statist approach.
226
00:31:43,320 --> 00:31:46,400
It's not a globalist approach. It's not cosmopolitan.
227
00:31:46,910 --> 00:31:52,040
And there is a state order that dictates the global policies.
228
00:31:52,490 --> 00:31:58,190
And we know that it's a very unique, inequitable order in statist order.
229
00:31:58,580 --> 00:32:02,750
Unfortunately, that's how things are in current international law.
230
00:32:03,560 --> 00:32:11,660
But kind of gets into the deeper issues of global unrest.
231
00:32:12,230 --> 00:32:16,880
And there he brings in the ideas of human rights violations.
232
00:32:17,270 --> 00:32:23,360
He brings in the ideas of deprivation, inequity, all that.
233
00:32:23,780 --> 00:32:33,200
And he says that those things need to be addressed to come up with what he calls a theory of global justice.
234
00:32:33,740 --> 00:32:41,240
Now, what's the difference between sovereign equality and global justice?
235
00:32:41,270 --> 00:32:45,230
Basically, this, as I just
mentioned a little bit already.
236
00:32:46,160 --> 00:32:49,100
Even when we have a word of sovereign equality,
237
00:32:49,520 --> 00:32:58,550
there could be inequity and human rights violations within states and a lot of resentment and all that, too, within states.
238
00:32:58,850 --> 00:33:09,679
Whereas in a world where global justice is operative along the line of peace, just peace is a highly idealised theory, of course, and presenting.
239
00:33:09,680 --> 00:33:18,230
And I would contrast that with the other side, the show where it's maybe idealised and maybe hard to really implement fully.
240
00:33:18,560 --> 00:33:28,129
But the other side is even harder to implement. And it just has it has had a track record, a proven disastrous failure, because given that,
241
00:33:28,130 --> 00:33:38,390
can't we do better, which is also a lot less costly and more effective?
242
00:33:38,480 --> 00:33:42,770
So that's the direction I'm going. So I wouldn't be cutting it.
243
00:33:42,770 --> 00:33:49,970
Even though he goes in the direction of just peace by promoting the idea of global justice.
244
00:33:50,420 --> 00:34:02,330
He does bring in this idea of a limited portion of provision for preventive intervention.
245
00:34:03,530 --> 00:34:08,179
The problem is this, and that's where I tend to show, he says,
246
00:34:08,180 --> 00:34:16,790
that it doesn't have to be intervention necessarily to attack country, but to intervene in some other sovereign places.
247
00:34:16,790 --> 00:34:23,000
But suppose in those cases, we find those non-state actors, rogue actors,
248
00:34:23,360 --> 00:34:32,090
about to ship the lethal virus into some populated area for their misguided ideas.
249
00:34:32,600 --> 00:34:33,470
What can we do?
250
00:34:34,100 --> 00:34:44,090
Well, my idea was that in a collaborative global governance, if we know there are known terrorists, and if they happen to be in our own country,
251
00:34:44,480 --> 00:34:50,630
then the question of preventive intervention by definition doesn't arise because we are not going to go any other countries.
252
00:34:51,620 --> 00:34:58,850
But if it's in some other country and if they're known terrorist activity, that's this idea that we know that they're about to do that.
253
00:34:59,750 --> 00:35:02,330
That in a collaborative global order,
254
00:35:03,110 --> 00:35:17,720
there are there are numerous opportunities to respond to that in a fashion where it's just a one sided flexing of muscles is not needed.
255
00:35:18,020 --> 00:35:20,990
That's the direction I'm going. So I'll make more comment on that.
256
00:35:21,000 --> 00:35:26,750
So where do you think the gradual emergence of the global human rights culture in the last 50 years is achieved?
257
00:35:26,750 --> 00:35:31,970
A certain level of international recognition for justice when there is an egregious violation of negative human rights
258
00:35:32,360 --> 00:35:38,720
with severe poverty and radical inequality in the socio economic arena are still not recognised as urgent human,
259
00:35:40,400 --> 00:35:47,209
urgent human rights concerns. This quote unquote holocaust of neglect perpetuates the issues.
260
00:35:47,210 --> 00:35:55,130
Demonstrating this holocaust of neglect perpetuates deprivation, destabilisation and violence, creating the presumed need for preventive intervention,
261
00:35:55,340 --> 00:36:01,580
whereas prevented non-intervention and practised as a systematic antidote to the inequity and neglect in the world,
262
00:36:01,760 --> 00:36:09,559
can take us beyond the need for preventive use of force effective non-military alternatives in the case of terrorism, policing,
263
00:36:09,560 --> 00:36:16,820
surveillance, diplomacy, education, international cooperation, recognising and meeting genuine grievances in the case of government.
264
00:36:17,480 --> 00:36:20,540
Persecution of its citizens. Diplomatic pressure.
265
00:36:20,540 --> 00:36:26,070
Non-violence. Coercive measures, including carefully developed sanctions aimed at the rulers rather than the ruled.
266
00:36:26,550 --> 00:36:31,410
Economic and financial measures aimed at dictators and legal sanctions against powerful perpetrators.
267
00:36:31,980 --> 00:36:38,760
These methods, though likely to be effective, are not guaranteed to fully succeed and are not easy to implement in practice.
268
00:36:39,330 --> 00:36:44,120
But the same is even more true with preventive war. Understanding the idea.
269
00:36:44,220 --> 00:36:50,490
This is the concluding notion. Understanding the idea of just peace can help us understand the seeming paradox of
270
00:36:50,490 --> 00:36:56,010
indifference leading to intervention and proactive engagement leading to non-intervention.
271
00:36:57,000 --> 00:37:04,470
What I'm sorry, I was I was suggesting to that we that we go on to David's comments and then we can have a discussion.
272
00:37:04,480 --> 00:37:09,480
And I know he has more things to add, but actually it's probably best to be moved on.
273
00:37:10,440 --> 00:37:16,499
Okay, David, thanks very much. And thanks so much, Dean, for coming along and for heroically persevering,
274
00:37:16,500 --> 00:37:23,460
despite the best effects of of of agents, biological agents to to intervene.
275
00:37:24,120 --> 00:37:30,299
I should also just mention that this event, as well as being hosted by ELAC,
276
00:37:30,300 --> 00:37:35,940
is also hosted by the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs in New York,
277
00:37:36,180 --> 00:37:43,310
and particularly by the Global Ethics Network, of which the three of us, Dean, Cheney, myself, are members.
278
00:37:43,410 --> 00:37:51,060
This event is also a part of the Global Ethics Network, a set of other events and initiatives.
279
00:37:52,800 --> 00:37:59,880
So very, very briefly, I maybe just will make a couple of comments before handing over to Charlie and then go to discussion.
280
00:38:00,270 --> 00:38:08,009
And I wanted to, rather than commenting specifically on, on Dean's proposals, because I'm very,
281
00:38:08,010 --> 00:38:12,959
very much in in support of the idea of moving towards some conception of just war.
282
00:38:12,960 --> 00:38:18,300
And I think it's very interesting what this is. Sorry, I've just piece I think it's very interesting that this is one of a number of context
283
00:38:18,300 --> 00:38:21,750
in which scholars are in many different ways trying to move beyond just war paradigms.
284
00:38:22,170 --> 00:38:23,819
So rather than responding specifically to that,
285
00:38:23,820 --> 00:38:31,379
I thought I would just try and situate very briefly the debate about pre-emption in the context of a broader
286
00:38:31,380 --> 00:38:39,180
debate about how we understand human rights and particularly the conditions for forfeiture of human rights.
287
00:38:40,080 --> 00:38:46,560
So the assumption that I'm going to make is that any kind of war, pre-emptive or not unilateral,
288
00:38:47,580 --> 00:38:55,590
multilateral or U.N. authorised that a basic precondition for any justified war is going to be that the persons,
289
00:38:55,590 --> 00:39:03,120
the enemy combatants that you use force against do not, in the relevant sense, have the right not to have force used against them.
290
00:39:03,120 --> 00:39:07,350
So in the techniques that we say that they are liable to the use of force.
291
00:39:08,910 --> 00:39:16,170
So one of the one of the ways of phrasing the question about pre-emption then, is to situate it in the context of a broader set of questions,
292
00:39:16,170 --> 00:39:24,450
which is about how ideas of proximity effect our conception of the rights that
293
00:39:24,450 --> 00:39:30,000
persons have and the conditions under which they lose or forfeit rights.
294
00:39:30,450 --> 00:39:38,759
So we might think about the questions about pre-emption as being questions about temporal proximity, right?
295
00:39:38,760 --> 00:39:47,700
So the distance in time that an agent is from an attack and we might want to look at this in the context of other
296
00:39:47,700 --> 00:39:53,520
proximity relationships and the effect that they have on the response of rights and responsibilities of agents.
297
00:39:54,030 --> 00:39:58,140
So we might want to think about three different contexts where these proximity questions arise.
298
00:39:58,890 --> 00:40:04,200
So one of these would be in the context of what we might call social relational proximity.
299
00:40:04,410 --> 00:40:11,790
So the idea here is that certain kinds of rights and responsibilities increase or have a greater stringency,
300
00:40:12,090 --> 00:40:15,780
the closer social relationship to that agent, or as we're familiar with,
301
00:40:15,780 --> 00:40:22,259
the idea that you can have greater responsibilities of care to our children than we do to strangers,
302
00:40:22,260 --> 00:40:25,020
greater responsibilities of care to perhaps our friends,
303
00:40:25,020 --> 00:40:30,360
colleagues occur nationals potentially than we do to strangers who do not share those relationships.
304
00:40:31,380 --> 00:40:39,570
Another set of issues may have to do with the effect that spatial proximity has to our rights and responsibilities.
305
00:40:40,140 --> 00:40:45,959
And again, there is some intuitive force to the idea that spatial proximity can indeed have
306
00:40:45,960 --> 00:40:49,860
an effect on the rights and responsibilities that we bear towards other agencies.
307
00:40:50,160 --> 00:40:50,639
This, of course,
308
00:40:50,640 --> 00:41:00,180
was famously denied by Peter Singer and his and his paper on famine and affluence with the example of the child and the and the fountain.
309
00:41:00,690 --> 00:41:08,160
And so the debate about pre-emption can be seen in the context of this as it as a debate, as also debate about the effects of proximity.
310
00:41:08,340 --> 00:41:12,090
But here, what we're worried about is not social relational, relational proximity.
311
00:41:12,330 --> 00:41:19,080
So spatial proximity, it's temporal proximity. But what's different about this context compared with the other two are a couple of different things.
312
00:41:19,590 --> 00:41:29,450
The first one is that. It seems to relate to negative duties, duties not to harm in the way that relational proximity and spatial proximity,
313
00:41:29,630 --> 00:41:35,250
to the extent that they are persuasive, seem to only relate to duties to assist.
314
00:41:35,270 --> 00:41:44,540
Right. So we don't believe that we have any less of an obligation not to actively harm somebody a very, very long way away from us in another country,
315
00:41:44,750 --> 00:41:51,260
someone who is not socially related to us, but arguably we do in terms of duties to assist the temporal.
316
00:41:51,260 --> 00:41:57,110
The temporal proximity questions are interesting because they precisely relate to questions of duties not to harm.
317
00:41:57,920 --> 00:42:03,170
They're also different in the sense that there are two dimensions to the temporal proximity question.
318
00:42:03,620 --> 00:42:14,210
So we ask the question both about the temporal distance after a wrongful attack, and we ask questions about which is the.
319
00:42:14,690 --> 00:42:20,070
And we ask questions, which is the pre-emptive question about the proximity prior to the attack.
320
00:42:20,110 --> 00:42:29,150
Right. So so pre-emption, we ask, are we permitted to use defensive force a considerable period of time before the attack actually occurs?
321
00:42:29,420 --> 00:42:35,629
But is a symmetrical set of questions, which is what are our permissions to use, as it were,
322
00:42:35,630 --> 00:42:40,910
a defensive force against a person who is responsible for a past wrongful attack.
323
00:42:41,450 --> 00:42:46,370
So you might think, for example, about the case of a person who
wrongfully attacks me.
324
00:42:46,430 --> 00:42:51,620
He tries to kill me, but he fails to kill me. That leaves me with a dangerous weather, with a wound.
325
00:42:52,160 --> 00:42:58,400
And a year later, that wound becomes infected, flares up, and it threatens to kill me.
326
00:42:58,610 --> 00:43:05,060
And the only way that I could save myself would be by killing the original aggressor, taking out his organ, and transplanting it into me.
327
00:43:05,450 --> 00:43:13,549
So the question is, does the fact that this the temporal proximity is now a year later, does that make a difference to the defence of rights?
328
00:43:13,550 --> 00:43:19,690
And intuitively, I think a lot of people think, yeah, it does make a difference if you if you can use force in that context.
329
00:43:19,730 --> 00:43:24,170
At the very least, perhaps the force is less that you can use and maybe it's for different reasons as well.
330
00:43:25,730 --> 00:43:34,430
So that's proximity after the effect. Pre-emption is different again, because we're asking about the the temporal proximity prior to the attack.
331
00:43:35,690 --> 00:43:42,920
And one of the things that a number of people have said is that the proximity itself isn't doing any of the work.
332
00:43:44,060 --> 00:43:50,040
What's really doing the work is conceptions of necessity or, as Dean put it, conceptions of certainty.
333
00:43:50,060 --> 00:43:54,020
So it's something that Jeff McMahon has argued in a number of places. It's like that.
334
00:43:54,190 --> 00:44:04,339
The length of time itself is irrelevant. The temporal proximity is just a proxy for whether it's necessary to engage in the defence of
335
00:44:04,340 --> 00:44:09,980
force against the person who at some later point in time will in fact harm you ingesting.
336
00:44:10,610 --> 00:44:14,780
No, I think that can't be right. And one way to see that is to think about examples like this one.
337
00:44:14,930 --> 00:44:23,959
All right. So imagine that I'm looking at my nemesis through a high powered telescope,
338
00:44:23,960 --> 00:44:28,310
and I can see that he's in my study and he's reading through a series of my papers.
339
00:44:28,550 --> 00:44:36,500
And one of those papers is a letter written by May to his wife, proving that I've been unfaithful with his wife.
340
00:44:36,620 --> 00:44:42,529
And I know based on his character, that as soon as he sees that letter, he is almost 100% certain,
341
00:44:42,530 --> 00:44:47,180
as soon as we can be to fly into a homicidal rage, in effect, to act upon that.
342
00:44:47,210 --> 00:44:53,030
So I know that in a very short period of time, he will, in fact, form and act upon a murderous intention.
343
00:44:53,300 --> 00:44:56,810
And I'm sitting there with my high powered rifle and I can shoot that person.
344
00:44:57,260 --> 00:45:00,290
So the question is, is necessity in that case sufficient?
345
00:45:00,470 --> 00:45:04,820
And most people would say, no, it's not necessity itself.
346
00:45:04,820 --> 00:45:10,370
It's not all that's doing the work. There's something deeper there, which is about agency and responsibility.
347
00:45:11,030 --> 00:45:25,280
So one of the thoughts that you might have is, well, the temporal condition is in part a requirement that there is a genuine act which is sufficient
348
00:45:25,280 --> 00:45:32,360
to ground responsibility for the unjust harm in the agent against whom one uses defensive force.
349
00:45:33,650 --> 00:45:39,860
Now, that's, again, in a way, a form of scepticism against the idea that it's proximity itself alone that's doing the work.
350
00:45:39,860 --> 00:45:44,870
But I think it still gives a closer reading to that than the one that ties it, particularly to necessity.
351
00:45:45,200 --> 00:45:51,230
And one of the worries that you might have, particularly about notions of pre-emptive preventive war in this case,
352
00:45:51,800 --> 00:45:58,129
is that the agency and responsibility requirements, if that's what we think they are, seem very,
353
00:45:58,130 --> 00:46:04,850
very marginally and problematically to be met in cases of pre-emptive, certainly preventive,
354
00:46:04,860 --> 00:46:12,380
and I think even in many cases a pre-emptive war, because one might worry here about whether what you have is pre-emption against.
355
00:46:12,890 --> 00:46:20,660
To put it crudely, the wrong moral agents. Right. So you have a state that is engaged in some forms of.
356
00:46:21,820 --> 00:46:27,340
Active preparation for a wrongful aggression, let's say, against another body.
357
00:46:28,630 --> 00:46:35,800
Now we ask the question, then, Will who amongst the agents within that state have taken the steps sufficient to assume
358
00:46:35,800 --> 00:46:41,890
responsibility for a wrongful attack such that they might be appropriate objects of defensive force?
359
00:46:42,460 --> 00:46:46,330
Well, it seems pretty clear that the agents that we're going to identify by asking that question
360
00:46:46,330 --> 00:46:51,190
will be at the very most members of the government and members of the senior leadership.
361
00:46:51,750 --> 00:46:54,969
The ordinary members of the the armed forces are doing what they always do.
362
00:46:54,970 --> 00:46:57,880
They are training, preparing in a state of readiness.
363
00:46:58,300 --> 00:47:06,670
But those if we think about it in the model of a criminal conspiracy, they don't seem to have taken that active step where they look like, in a sense,
364
00:47:07,150 --> 00:47:08,890
the person reading through the letter,
365
00:47:09,610 --> 00:47:17,439
we may have reasonable certainty that they will at some point in the future be actively involved in a wrongful attack.
366
00:47:17,440 --> 00:47:21,759
But until they themselves have taken that step of agency, it seems very,
367
00:47:21,760 --> 00:47:27,040
very hard to understand how they themselves could have that liability to
defensive force.
368
00:47:28,270 --> 00:47:32,680
Let me leave it there and maybe pick up on some of those things.
369
00:47:32,950 --> 00:47:37,990
Well, we want to invite comments.
370
00:47:38,380 --> 00:47:46,660
I'll begin with one or two of my own. I think that they're very interesting philosophical issues about pre-emption and prevention.
371
00:47:48,520 --> 00:47:59,110
You run into almost all of them in domestic law in the United States, in the law of self-defence involving what's called the battered spouse issue.
372
00:48:00,010 --> 00:48:05,890
And these are cases where women have good reason to believe that their life is in danger.
373
00:48:06,430 --> 00:48:07,870
And how much can they act?
374
00:48:07,870 --> 00:48:16,270
In particular, can they use lethal force against someone without an imminent threat, etcetera, etcetera, as preventive pre-emption?
375
00:48:16,330 --> 00:48:25,510
So I think the issues that David is raising and those raised in the literature about the rights and liability to attack are fascinating issues.
376
00:48:26,410 --> 00:48:32,170
I have to say, quite frankly, they have nothing to do with international affairs as far as I can see.
377
00:48:34,330 --> 00:48:43,410
The problem that people who believe in preventive war or pre-emptive war is giving us many examples of where we can,
378
00:48:43,660 --> 00:48:49,780
but in the most minimal sense agree that it was justified. Interestingly, when you study the battered spouse problem,
379
00:48:49,780 --> 00:48:57,400
almost every case you read about that there's one where you're sympathetic to the spouse on some level that she had good reason after she did.
380
00:48:58,150 --> 00:49:05,590
The problem is, is that the discussion of pre-emptive war and preventive war is now under the shadow of the invasion of Iraq.
381
00:49:07,570 --> 00:49:16,900
And someone, it seems to me, to make a case for is going to have to show why this is not just something that we can imagine justified,
382
00:49:17,440 --> 00:49:25,600
but can be justified in the real world, because the way the discussion often goes, as well as so that the President is not George W Bush,
383
00:49:26,110 --> 00:49:28,990
but an enlightened, nice guy with only good intentions.
384
00:49:29,410 --> 00:49:36,730
Assume that the U.S. military is not the institution that it is, but something that has only justice on its side.
385
00:49:37,000 --> 00:49:43,160
Assume that we have perfect knowledge of the threat and assume that the sea has turned to lemonade, gas and Somalia stuck.
386
00:49:43,250 --> 00:49:48,790
Okay, we have rules like this, like no prevention because we live in the real world.
387
00:49:49,600 --> 00:49:53,560
We have rules about police not doing things because we live in the real world.
388
00:49:53,860 --> 00:50:02,950
And I think that that's part of the debate here, is how much some of these domestic arguments map onto the international case.
389
00:50:03,910 --> 00:50:07,800
I think Dean's suggestion is is just peace is great.
390
00:50:07,810 --> 00:50:14,140
It seems to me that what he's basically suggesting is disconnecting sovereignty from armed violence.
391
00:50:15,040 --> 00:50:21,920
The modern state system arose with the notion of what it meant to be a sovereign state, just was to be able to employ armed violence.
392
00:50:22,270 --> 00:50:25,510
And it seems to me that we're moving actually not towards a world.
393
00:50:25,810 --> 00:50:33,219
I think we still need sovereignty, along with moving towards as a world in which sovereignty is disconnected from our own violence.
394
00:50:33,220 --> 00:50:39,070
And that's part of what I hear in the kind of federalist model that they suggest, and that seems to be very attractive.
395
00:50:40,090 --> 00:50:43,630
So with that, I'll invite comments.