INTA 2030 Fall 2011

Final Exam
Part I
Select the best answer for each of the following questions. Each question is worth 1 point.
1. According to Michael Walzer, in just war theory two rules make up the war convention. What are
they?
a. When soldiers can kill in war and why they can kill
b. When soldiers can kill in war and who they can kill in war
c. Which soldiers are allowed to kill in war and how they can kill
d. Which states can declare war and how they can declare war
e. The best time to declare war and the best way to do so
2. Which of the following is true of political communities for Walzer?
a. They have a right to territorial integrity
b. They do not have a right to sovereignty
c. They have a moral standing to the extent that they protect the common life of their
community of members
d. A and B, but not C
e. A and C, but not B
3. What is the difference between preemptive and preventive war?
a. Nothing, the two terms are interchangeable
b. To justify warfare as preemptive and not just preventive, the anticipated attack to a state
must seem inevitable
c. To justify warfare as preemptive and not just preventive, a state must be able to show that
the anticipated attack is imminent
d. A preventive war occurs in anticipation of attack, and a preemptive war occurs in reaction
to an attack
4. When is killing in war justified, according to Walzer?
a. When noncombatants and wounded/disarmed soldiers are the targets
b. In a conventional war when an enemy soldier is the target
c. When a state needs the natural resources of a friendly neighboring state
d. In any situation once war has been declared
e. Killing is never justified
5. What is double effect in war?
a. A situation when one targets an enemy building but also shoots enemy soldiers in the
process
b. A situation where a soldier can be held in custody twice as long for war crimes
c. Any situation where the value of hitting your target is doubled
d. A situation where a soldier has to strike twice to effectively destroy a target
e. A situation where hitting a legitimate target will also cause an effect one would

normally be obliged to avoid

6. What is a siege?
a. Attack on any army barracks
b. A surprise attack upon soldiers as they rest
c. Military use of a building(s) that results in the exposure of civilians to soldiers risks
d. The defense of a fortress that causes a large amount of structural damage
e. None of the above

7. According to Nussbaum, why should we think of ourselves as citizens of the world?

a. We can avoid partisan loyalties by solving our problems if we face ourselves as world
citizens
b. We see ourselves more clearly when we see our ways in relation to those of other
reasonable people
c. Only through understanding ourselves as world citizens do we understand what is
fundamental about us
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
8. What does the International Criminal Court do?
a. Tries individuals charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes
b. Enforces international criminal laws
c. Defines crimes against humanity
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
9. How would the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine change the UN, if it were to be implemented?
a. It would undermine state sovereignty by promoting intervention in response to crimes
against humanity
b. It would have no effect on the UN
c. It would make responding to aggression by a third party illegal, even if the target state
requested help
d. It would give the International Courts of Justice the responsibility of deciding which state
is justified in going to war
e. It would place the responsibility to protect civilians squarely in the hands of their
respective member state
10. Which of the following is not one of the charges against the WTO listed by Singer?
a. Places economic considerations ahead of human and animal welfare, and care for the
environment
b. Erodes national sovereignty
c. Increases inequality
d. Is undemocratic
e. It leads to the security dilemma among states
11. When does duty become charity, according to Singer?
a. When a person gives so much that their giving becomes burdensome
b. When the suffering prevented equals a sacrifice of equal importance (for example,

sacrificing something of equal importance to preventing a person from dying)

c. When every last penny has been given
d. As soon as charity is declared by the giving organization
e. A duty never becomes charity for Singer
12. How much foreign aid does the United States contribute yearly, as a percentage of its gross
income?
a. More than 10%
b. Between 5% and 10%
c. Between 1% and 5%
d. Between than 0.5% and 1%
e. Less than 0.5%

13. Which if the following is not one of the eight UN Millennium Development Goals?
a. Improve maternal health
b. Eradicate all income inequality
c. Achieve universal primary education
d. Reduce child mortality
e. Ensure environmental sustainability
14. What target is associated with the UN Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme
poverty and hunger?
a. Ensuring that all children are able to complete primary school
b. Reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day
c. Reducing by two-thirds the rate of children dying under the age of five
d. Reducing by three-quarters the rate of women dying during pregnancy
e. Halting and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria
15. How does Garrett Hardin disagree with Adam Smith on the issue of public goods?
a. Hardin argues that there is an invisible hand that leads an individual to act in a way that
in the end helps the public
b. Smith believes that our individual freedom to reproduce should be limited by government
or else the population will grow beyond the resources available to foster it
c. Hardin argues that there is no invisible hand that leads an individual to act in a way that
in the end helps the public
d. Smith argues that public goods can only be protected if the invisible hand of warfare is
used as a threat to anyone who attempts to spoil those goods
e. None of the above
16. How does Hardin think we should address the problem of scarce resources?
a. Through privatization
b. Through forced population reduction
c. Through mechanisms that reflect Singers view of distributive justice
d. Through mutual coercion
e. Through self-imposed austerity measures
17. Why is Hardins story of the commons supposed to be tragic?
a. It says that even the most altruistic people are really greedy
b. It says that even if people act perfectly rationally the commons will be spoiled
c. It says that there are simply not enough resources to go around
d. It says that will always be one individual who will forcibly take over the commons
e. All of the above
18. The Kyoto Protocol
a. Is an emissions reduction agreement according to which 39 developed states have to
reduce their emissions levels to around 1990 levels
b. Allows emissions to be traded to help states achieve their target
c. Is not enforced by a few states including the United States
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
19. Specifically, what mechanisms for emissions reduction does the Kyoto Protocol include
a. Joint Implementation projects between developed states
b. Clean Development Mechanisms between developed and developing states
c. International Emissions Trading between developed and developing states
d. All of the above
e. None of the above

20. What principle does Singer support with respect to protecting the environment?
a. The You broke it, you fix it principle
b. An equal share for everyone
c. Help the worst off first
d. The Greatest happiness principle
e. None of the above
21. What is the relation between statehood and warfare, according to the Stanford encyclopedia of
Philosophy?
a. Wars can occur between states and non-political communities
b. States are formed by groups that think of themselves as peoples, so all wars are between
peoples
c. States are the machinery of governance, and all warfare is ultimately about governance
d. There is no relation between statehood and warfare
e. Warfare and statehood are one and the same thing since states are always essentially at
war
22. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
a. Sought to liberate Iraq from an invasion by Kuwait
b. Stated that both Iraq and Kuwait were in compliance with their cease-fire agreement
c. Stated that the US would respect the sovereignty of Iraq and not interfere with how it is
run, in direct contrast to the neoconservative position if the Bush Administration
d. Stated that Iraq had violated international law and its post-war obligations and that US
policy would now support regime change in Iraq
e. Stated that Iraq was a state sponsor of international terrorism and provided evidence to
prove this
23. In his 2001 speech to the UN Security Council, what charges did President Bush make against
Iraq?
a. Iraq was in violation of a UNSC resolution because it supports terrorist organizations
b. UNHCR found that Iraq violated human rights
c. Iraq continued to produce and use WMDs
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
24. Did the US and the UK receive explicit UN authorization to use force against Iraq in 2003?
a. Yes
b. No
25. What is jus post bellum?
a. The justice of conduct after fighting has ended
b. The justice of going to war
c. The justice of conduct during war
d. The justice of creating a worldwide perpetual peace
e. The justice of the anti-war movement

Part II
Expect to write at around 6 lines for each of the following short answer questions. Each question is
worth 5 points, and partial credit will be given. You can use the back of the sheet if you need extra
space.
26. Answer the following questions regarding Walzers theory of aggression.
a. Provide two ways in which the international society of states is different from the
domestic society of individuals, according to Walzer. (2 points)
b. Is aggression a criminal act, according to Michael Walzer? (1 point)
c. How can the target state and the international society respond to aggression? (2 points)
a. Ways in which the international society of states is different from the domestic society of
individuals: (2 of the 3 examples are sufficient; answer 3 does not need to be this
exhaustive, but here is the full answer for your reference)
i. Every interstate conflict threatens international society with collapse
ii. Because there is nobody to execute international laws, aggression is much more
dangerous internationally than domestically
iii. International societys police powers are distributed among its members
1. Therefore, it is a duty of state militaries to resist aggression
2. When fighting breaks out, there must be some state against which
international law can and should be enforced. No war can be just on both
sides
b. Yes
c. Target state can respond with a war of self defense; international society can respond with
a war of law enforcement (just saying going to war is acceptable n both cases)
27. These two questions are about the history of international efforts to protect populations as
described by Singer.
a. Provide one type each of a crime against peace, war crime, and crime against humanity
(for example, one type of war crime is murder). (2 points)
b. What is genocide, according to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide? Include two forms of genocide in your answer(3 points)
a. One type each:
a. Crimes against peace initiate war; aggression
b. War crimes include murder (already given in my example), ill-treatment of
civilians or prisoners of war
c. Crimes against humanity: include murder, enslavement, extermination,
deportation of civilian populations. Also refers to persecution of a population on
political, racial or religious grounds
b. They do not need to be as precise as the following definition (i.e., can use their own
words): Any of the following acts committed to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

28. The following two questions are about just war theory
a. List any four of the requirements for jus ad bellum. (4 points)
b. What does jus ad bellum mean? (1 point)
a. Requirements for Jus ad Bellum:
i. Just Cause
ii. Right intention
iii. Proper authority
iv. Last resort
v. Probability of success
vi. Proportionality
b. Jus ad Bellum: the justice of going to war
29. As part of your course readings, you read a roundtable debate on the Iraq war between Richard
Betts, Neta Crawford, and Thomas Nichols. Describe the main argument made by any one of
these three authors. In your description include a definition of any technical terms you use, such
as preemption or narrow sense of self. (5 points)
a. Betts:
i. Consider the strategic wisdom or error of military operations
ii. Preemptive wars are more legitimate than preventive wars because of a practical
difference in the weight of evidence that the adversary is bound to attack at some
point. Preemptive wars are very rare; preventive wars are more common
1. There are no good historical examples of preventive war
iii. Regarding Iraq (and the axis of evil states)
1. Deterrence threats against these states have worked in the past and
should be continued
2. Striking first can be helpful in reducing damage of fully reliable evidence
is obtained that the adversary is preparing to strike and if striking first
will reduce damage that could occur by waiting to defend an attack
b. Nichols:
i. The pertinent question is not whether the US is acting preventively or
preemptively, but whether the decision to go to war with the Iraqi regime is just.
Debates about preemption and prevention obscure the moral question
ii. The question is about whether the decision is in conformity with the requirements
for jus ad bellum: just cause, right intention, proportionality, etc.?
iii. The record provides ample evidence of the justice of a war against Saddam
Husseins regime
1. Iraq is a serial aggressor
2. Iraq has attacked civilian noncombatant
3. Is a supreme enemy of human rights and has used WMDs against its own
civilians
4. Is a consistent violator of the 1991 cease-fire treaty and of the Geneva
Conventions
5. Is a terrorist entity that has engaged in international illegal activity
including an attempt on Pres. H.W. Bushs life
6. Is relentlessly seeking nuclear weapons
c. Crawford:
i. There is a new preemption doctrine in the US with respect to rogue states, and
the legitimacy of this new doctrine should be evaluated.
ii. Preemption against rogue states would be legitimate if four necessary conditions
are met:

1. Preemption should not protect imperial interests or assets taken in a war

of aggression. The state contemplating prevention should have a narrow
conception of self
a. The US definition of the self to be defended has become very
broad, including contributing to economic well-being, access to
key markets, and maintaining preeminence
b. A narrow sense of self would involve protecting the near-term
integrity of national sovereignty and borders
2. There should be strong evidence that war is inevitable and likely in the
immediate future. Capability is not justification
a. Fear of the enemy is not enough. Fear alone implies preventive
war. One must consider and reasonably judge the capabilities and
intentions of potential adversaries
3. Preemptive war should be likely to succeed in reducing the threat
4. Military force should be necessary because no other measures have time
to work
30. Describe a character or a moment in a film we watched in class that struck you in some way.
What was the role of the character, or what happened in the moment? Why do you find this
character or moment particularly striking? How does this character or moment relate to the
subjects we have discussed in this course? You can pick from either Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
or Restrepo. (5 points)
a. This is a subjective question. It requires sufficient knowledge of one of the films and its
general relation to the class. Go to the following sites for information about the two films
i. Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/
ii. Restrepo: http://restrepothemovie.com/
31. We have learned about realism, rationalism, cosmopolitanism/revolutionism and
communitarianism in this class. In a line or two, describe any three of these positions. Which, if
any, comes closest to your own perspective on international ethics? Why? You can, if you like,
illustrate your ethical stance by discussing your ethical position on current affairs.
Question is also a bit subjective, but must at least define three of the four perspectives:
cosmopolitanism, realism, rationalism, and communitarianism.
Definitions (students only expected to define terms in one line)
Realism:
a. Sees the primacy in all political life of power and security-seeking
b. Sees a tragic sense of the bad in political action
c. Often holds the view that humans constitute a collection of separate communities with no
common morality
d. Order has priority over justice and the two are in inherent conflict
Rationalism: Hold the view that anarchy and international society are not mutually exclusive.
a. States cooperate in a society without government
b. International society is a society of sovereign states. The order among sovereign
states is different from the order among individuals
c. Prescribe respecting the legal and moral rules upon which the working of the
international society depends

d. No necessary conflict between order and justice. The present order can be reconciled
with greater justice
Cosmopolitanism/Revolutionism:
a. From Hedley Bulls definition of revolutionism
a. Is a tradition in ethics that sees human beings as a single moral

community where there are some rules that apply to all

b. International relations are in a Hobbesian state of nature, and the only way
out is to end international anarchy
c. Rules are derived from the higher morality of a cosmopolitan society
d. Justice has priority over order, and the present order is in conflict with justice
b. From Kants cosmopolitanism
a. Only in a world of law-governed, external relations among nations a
federation of peoples can a perfect civil constitution exist in perpetual
peace
Communitarianism:
a. Political communities protect and establish the common life of their members
b. The rights of individual members are at stake when the rights of a political
community (a state) are violated
c. Political communities establish the individual rights of humans and so are very
precious
d. Different political communities can have very different conceptions of individual
rights
TAs: Be particularly liberal in grading the definitions of cosmopolitanism and
communitarianism because the students will be picking these out of various indirect sources
Part III: Extra credit, worth I point.
32. In the debate we saw in class, according to which Congressional Representative is the US war in
Afghanistan illegitimate?
a. Congressman Ron Paul