Suchergebnisse

A sophisticated and intellectually powerful analysis of culpability and moral responsibility in war, Accountability for Killing focuses on the causes of many episodes of foreseeable collateral damage. Why was there so much unintended killing of civilians in the U.S. wars zones in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan? Is 'collateral damage' simply an unavoidable consequence of all wars? Why, when the U.S. military tries so hard to limit collateral damage, does so much of it seem to occur? Trenchant, original, and ranging across security studies, international law, ethics, and international relations, Accountability for Killing will reshape our understanding of the ethics of contemporary war.

AbstractIn Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos highlights several negative consequences the preparation for war has for individuals and states. But he misses what I consider perhaps the most significant consequence of military mobilization for states, especially democracies: how war and the preparation for it affect deliberative politics. While many argue that all states, including democracies, require strong militaries—and there is some evidence that long wars can build democracies and states—I focus on the other effects of militarization and war on democratic states. War and militarism are antipodal to democracy and undermine it. Their normative bases are conflicting—democracy takes force off the table, whereas force is legitimate in war. Thus, while militarism and militarization can sometimes yield liberalization and the expansion of civil rights, they are arguably more likely to undermine democratic norms and practices.

The moral duties of the United States in Iraq cannot be separated from the larger question of the security requirements of the United States and its larger moral duties as the world's preeminent military and economic power. Moreover, even after the United States leaves Iraq these questions will not disap- pear, not least because it may find itself occupying more states in its war on ter- ror and against rogue states.

Explores the concept of 'background' taken-for-granted ideas in politics, linking this notion to Habermas' 'lifeworld' and Focault's 'episteme' Explicates decision-makers' background ideas about the utility and effectiveness of war Suggests that offensive war is not as effective as decision-makers tend to assume and that decision-makers tend to discount the costs of war Shows that beliefs about the effectiveness of war—specifically the articulation of military necessity and proportionality—tend to weaken the just war and international law limitations on war 'Background ideas' are the essential foundation for decision-making, action, and institutionalized practices. These ideas are sometimes explicitly articulated—when defended or asserted in new contexts—but more often simply assumed and unstated. Decision-makers often believe that war works—that it is effective—and moreover that war can achieve objectives at comparatively low cost. Jus ad bellum and jus in bello considerations in the just war tradition—including last resort, necessity, probability of success, and proportionality, and the idea of double effect—are also explicitly concerned with utility—whether and when war works. Utility is also an essential element in the discourse about military necessity. Does war work? What is it good for? Why does it tend to extremes of violence? What are its costs? How do decision-makers hold onto beliefs about the utility of war in the face of disconfirming evidence?

Emotions are a ubiquitous intersubjective element of world politics. Yet, passions are often treated as fleeting, private, reactive, and not amenable to systematic analysis. Institutionalization links the private and individual to the collective and political. Passions may become enduring through institutionalization, and thus, as much as characterizing private reactions to external phenomena, emotions structure the social world. To illustrate this argument, I describe how fear and empathy may be institutionalized, discuss the relationship between these emotions, and suggest how empathy may be both a mirror and potential antidote to individual and institutionalized fear.