Study Guides (238,292)
Canada (115,058)
POLI 362 (3)

POLI 362 - Final Prep: War and Just War.doc

7 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
Political Science
POLI 362
Catherine Lu

Mill > Aggression is bad; aggression includes forcing our ideas on others; defensive wars okay “To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive, not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue: for it is as little justifiable to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in any other respect. But there are assuredly cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with attack.” > Just war theory only extends to 'civilized' peoples “There is a great difference (for example) between the case in which the nations concerned are of the same, or something like the same, degree of civilization, and that in which one of the parties to the situation of a high, and the other of a very low, grade of social improvement.” First: “the rules of ordinary international morality imply reciprocity. But barbarians will not reciprocate.” Second: “nations which are still barbarous have not got beyond the period during which it is likely to be for their benefit that they should be conquered and held in subjection by foreigners.” “The only moral laws for the relation between a civilized and a barbarous government, are the universal rules of morality between man and man.” A civilized peoples, finding barbarians as neighbours, are “obliged to conquer them.” However, this also means that the civilized people is “morally responsible for all evil it allows them to do.” Very paternalistic. > Civilized peoples cannot interfere in affairs of other civilized peoples “A government which needs foreign support to enforce obedience from its own citizens, is one which ought not to exist; and the assistance given to it by foreigners is hardly ever anything but the sympathy of one despotism with another.” “The only test possessing any real value, of a people's having become fit for popular institutions, is that they, or a sufficient portion of them to prevail in the contest, are willing to brave labour and danger for their liberation.” “If they have not sufficient love of liberty to be able to wrest it from merely domestic oppressors, the liberty which is bestowed on them by other hands than their own, will have nothing real, nothing permanent.” “Intervention to enforce non-intervention is always rightful, always moral, if not always prudent. Though it be a mistake to give freedom to a people who do not value the boon, it cannot but be right to insist that if they do value it, they shall not be hindered from the pursuit of it by foreign coercion.” Walzer > Aggression is the only crime states can commit against each other; it justifies forceful resistance > Rights of polities (territorial integrity and political sovereignty) are derived from rights of individuals. When states are attacked, individuals are challenged in their socio-political associations, including the shared experiences that together form common life. Thus, the social contract is just a “metaphor for a process of association and mutuality, the ongoing character of which the state claims to protect against external encroachment.” > Ex. Alsace-Lorraine. Here, Walzer believes that “the land follows the people.” > Admits that political borders are arbitrary; however, they still serve a purpose, insofar as they delineate safety from attack. “Once the lines are crossed, safety is gone.” > Two presumptions: (1) military resistance is just once aggression has begun; (2) there is an aggressor. > Two wars that are mutually unjust: (1) voluntary combat of aristocratic warriors; (2) 'imperialist' wars between conquerors Theory of Aggression 1) There is an international society of independent states 2) This IS has a law that establishes the rights of its members: territorial integrity and political sovereignty 3) Use of force or imminent threat of force is aggression 4) Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: war of self-defence and war of enforcement by others to the assistance of the victim 5) Nothing but aggression can justify war 6) When the aggressor has been militarily repulsed, she can also be punished > Rejects appeasement: A principle to always seek peace, even if it means appeasement, “would concede the loss or erosion of independence for the sake of the survival of individual men and women. It points toward a certain sort of international society, founded not on the defense of rights but on the adjustment to power” Interventions > intervention may be justified—but they must always be justified > Secession: only “when a particular set of boundaries clearly contains two or more political communities, one of which is already engaged in a large-scale military struggle.” However, “an intervention is not just if it subjects third parties to terrible risks.” Problem: does this encourage violence? > Counter-intervention: “when the boundaries have already been crossed by the armies of a foreign power.” > Humanitarian: “when the violation of human rights within a set of boundaries is so terrible that it makes talk of community or self-determination ... seem cynical and irrelevant.” Furthermore, “any state capable of stopping the slaughter has
More Less

Related notes for POLI 362

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.