Class Notes (838,950)
Canada (511,158)
POL101Y1 (1,148)
Lecture 3

POL323Y1- Lecture 3.docx

4 Pages
133 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POL101Y1
Professor
Seth Jaffe
Semester
Fall

Description
th September 25 , 2013 POL323Y1 Lecture 3 Revisions Reprise: Anticipations and Interventions - The only just war is a response to aggression - Non-intervention is a key pillar of just war theory - If you may the exception to the rule of no intervention - Anticipations o Preemptive war is when the knife is poised in mid air and about to come down, you don’t have to wait for the blow to strike first in this situation  Walzer is in favor of preemptive war o Preventive war is war when there are rumblings in the distance of war but no guarantee. Powers are growing and they may or may not be a concern to you but you are concerned about it.  Walzer is not in favor of preventive war; says to wait and see if anything happens. - A security dilemma is when you risk your security in an attempt to improve it - Walzer denies the middle range, should a states man or woman have the right to prevent a general security dilemma before it actually arrives. Therefore isn’t preventive war a good thing? - Walzer says just because you think your neighbor has weapons does not mean you can attack him. You need to have evidence and clearly being threatened to do anything, otherwise you are being aggressive. - Interventions o Civilians, if civilians are being attacked (hard to tell between who is a solider and who is a civilian) then that’s a problem. o One is allowed to win a war against soldiers but it is a different manner when one is attacking civilians, ethnic groups, etc. o Issue of civil wars and intervention is a very thorny complicated situation. How do you intervene successfully, who intervenes, who wants to spend their own resources on it? o Interference is aggression! If you interfere with another state it is aggression unless they interfere with you. You can’t interfere in the right of states. o You can’t impose political solutions top-down. People have to believe that this is a formal government that they want, not one imposed of them by another state. Thus the people have to solve this problem themselves, another state cannot intervene. o Counter intervention, two powers fighting for control of the state and a third power then comes in. You are justified in coming in and removing that 3 power. Again NON-INTERVENTION! o There has to be some kind of line, some kind of principal for intervention. For Walzer it is when civilians are suffering and being denied human rights. Besides that there is no other reason! o However, when you enter into a civil war for example you assist the weaker side, which only continues the bloodshed for longer. Even if you join the stronger side which is wrong, they sooner they win the sooner the bloodshed stops. These issues are thorny and complicated, just because you don’t like what’s going on in your neighbors’ country does not mean you can go in and fix it. o Usually when other countries become involved in stopping genocide and the denial of human rights, it is for that reason but also for separate personal reasons. - Walzer says US intervention in Vietnam, the facts didn’t hold up and therefore their involvement was unjust. o Couldn’t the US have had a higher morality in resisting communism? o Might there not be certain circumstances where the bigger issues are at play and involve intervention?  Ex. Wouldn’t starting a preventive war against Hitler be a good thing? The bigger issue is at stake is Hitler’s oppression and denying Jews human rights, etc. True this was at first an internal problem and intervening would be aggression but are we not to look at the bigger issue here? The War Convention (Jus in Bello) - Justice in how we fight a War justly  Citizens and soldiers are not responsible for the wars; the political leaders may bear the crime of the war. If you are drafted, how is it your fault since you are only serving your country? - Soldiers fight justly and unjustly in the conduct of wars; we presume soldiers are told to fight and are not decision makers. For the most part it is not the soldiers war, therefore for the soldiers they are not responsible for starting this war however, they are responsible for how they fight that war. - Citizens and soldiers are different. Soldiers are legitimate targets, are civilians legitimate targets? NO. - Killing soldiers is not murder. If you are a prisoner, you surrender, then you become a civilian. To kill the guard then is a c
More Less

Related notes for POL101Y1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit