You are on page 1of 23

Week 1

1. Explain why Peter Singers use of the example of the child drowning in the pond is an example of bottom-up moral reasoning. (In your explanation, you must also explain topdown moral reasoning and contrast the two kinds of reasoning.) Top-down reasoning is a form of reasoning that moves from moral norms or principles (or other acceptable premises) to particular moral judgments. For instance, I can use to main premises that my moral obligations of assistance are obligations that I have to family and friends, not to strangers and the secondary premises that people starving in distant lands are strangers, not family and friends to conclude the particular moral judgment that I have no moral obligation of assistance to people starving in distant lands. In the instance of the drowning child, Singer uses bottom-up reasoning, which moves from moral judgments about a particular case to moral norms or principles. Undermining reasons, in which a judgment about a particular case[s] leads to giving up a norm or principle, and supporting reasons, in which a moral norm is accepted because it best fits with or explains particular moral judgments about specific cases, are two types of bottom-up reasoning, both of which are employed by Singer. First, the example of the drowning child is used in a case of undermining reasoning: using my first premises that I have a moral obligation or assistance only to my family and friends, it would be logical to conclude that I have no obligation to save a drowning child who is a stranger to me, even if doing so will be only a minor inconvenience to myself and not doing so will result in the childs guaranteed dea th. In this instance, the norm (the first premesis) is undermined. Moral disequilibrium is introduced because I am drawn to the new conclusion that I do have a moral obligation to save the drowning child. To support the new judgment, supporting reasoning is used to create a new norm that fits with the judgment; this new norm is that if it is in my power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of moral significance, I have a moral obligation to do it. In using top-down reasoning to apply the norm to starvation, I would conclude (because the starvation of people in other lands is bad and I could take actions to help them) that I have a moral obligation to take action to prevent some people in distant lands from starving. 2. In his discussion of global poverty, Singer discusses two principles, one weaker (less demanding) and one stronger (more demanding). State one of these principles you can choose which one. Explain this principle by giving examples of what it would require someone like you to do, if by donating $100 you could save the life of someone in a distant land who would otherwise starve. The more demanding principle, favored by Singer, states that if it is in my power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, I have a moral obligation to do it. What is of comparable moral significance varies from person to person since individuals value things differently. If I assume that giving $100 will indeed save a life (a controversial statement), then I have a moral obligation to sacrifice something important to make this happen. For instance, I to earn the money I might have to work extra hours, even if this extra work places extra stress on me and lessens the amount of time I can spend with my family. 3. What is reflective equilibrium? How does it relate to the ideas of top-down and bottomup moral reasoning? According to Rawls, equilibrium reasoning is reasoning that can be both top-down and bottomup. It is a way of finding equilibrium among our various moral beliefs, both generalizations (principles and norms) and particular moral judgments. It requires us to make judgments about what it makes the most sense to believe. In the case of the drowning child, it makes more sense to believe a particular moral judgment about needing to help over the original generalization about duties of assistance. The ultimate goal for a society is general and wide, or full, reflective equilibrium, in which everyone has considered the options and reached the same conclusions (this is opposed to narrow and wide equilibriums).

Week 2:
4. Describe the original position as employed in John Rawlss theory of domestic justice. In your answer, make reference both to what the veil of ignorance is and to what Rawlss motivation is for using it. Rawls uses a social contract theory in which the fair terms of social cooperation are agreed upon by those engaged in the contract. He is motivated to use the veil of ignorance because, in the ideal case, the conditions of the social contract are made with none having unfair bargaining advantages over others. In the hypothetical consent test, parties represent individual members of society who are in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance so that they cannot know the social positions or doctrines, race, ethnic group, sex, or native endowments of the persons they represent. An individual cannot know if they will benefit or suffer from biased institutions and as such will agree only to principles that will be fair to all. Rawls intends for the original position to be used as a device of representation to help us articulate what is required for the terms of cooperation to be fair and to help us determine what the principles of justice of our society should be. 5. In lecture we identified three important moral ideas contained in Rawlss two principles of justice. What are the three ideas? Explain them briefly. For each of the three ideas, state your opinion: is it a requirement of international justice? Explain. (Ten points.) Societies based on these 2 principles of domestic justice are liberal societies or peoples Liberty principle o Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all everyone has claim to basic liberty as long as this claim compatible with others freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, political liberties, freedom of association, rights specified by liberty and integrity of the person, rights of liberties covered by rule of law [religious freedom and democratic rights are included] Difference principle o A. fair equality of opportunity: social and econ inequalities attached to offices and positions open to all and o B. they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society i.e. think of justification of capitalism: total growth of society benefits everyone o A no discrimination on basis of sex, race, etc. in education and employment o B social and economic institutions must be egalitarian unless inequalities provide incentives that raise the level of the least well-off group; the position of the least well off is maximized by institutions 6. Rawls articulated his theory of international justice in The Law of Peoples. What is the most important difference between his theory of domestic justice and his theory of international justice? (Hint: do they both employ the same original position test?) While in the domestic theory, the OP is applied to the individual case, in the international case the parties in the individual position are states. The parties cannot assumed to be liberal since decent hierarchical societies must also be respected. The same principles will not be agreed to since not all groups subscribe to liberalist: the main goal will be preventing aggression and invasion. Minimal rights will be agreed on as a substitute for more demanding human rights. 7. What is the function of human rights in Rawlss Law of Peoples? Because the parties in the international case are not all liberal democracies and because one cannot insist that all countries exist as such, the human rights are a substitute for more demanding principle of domestic justice. These are quite distinct from the human rights normally thought of and do not guarantee distributive rights, right to democratic government, or the right to fair equality of opportunity. Liberal societies must tolerate decent peoples because not doing so would express

insuffieicneint respect for acceptable ways of ordering a society. One reason for toleration is that decent peoples secure for their peoples a list of minimal human rights so that people can engage in social cooperation. While any society that guarantees the rights expressed is immune from coercive treatment, those that overstep the limits of toleration are subject to economic sanctions or attack. 8. In Rawlss theory of international justice, is inequality between wealthy nations and poor ones a problem of international justice? Explain. Yes, in a qualified way. While the international case does not require a global difference principle, advanced countries do have a moral obligation to aid other societies so that they can reach the minimum level of a well-ordered society. Once this level is reached, however, there are no other distributive constraints and thus no limits of inequality between different societies. States may have a duty to assist each other, in emergencies, but no duties to avoid inequality 9. What does Alison Jaggar mean by cycles of gendered vulnerability? Why does she think that these cycles of gendered vulnerability are problems of international justice, rather than just problems of domestic justice? The vulnerabilities that women face in different areas of their lives are mutually reinforcing, forming causal feedback looks known as cycles of gendered vulnerability. Many of the disparities between men and women can be seen as elements of these cycles. o Institutional arrangements make women vulnerable in various ways that they would not be vulnerable if the institutional arrangements were just. Traditional marriage dependence on husbands (can lead to poverty and abuse), domestic violence Global domestic work industry workers treated as 2nd class citizens National and transnational sex industry often form of slavery Because these cycles operate on a transnational scale (such as in domestic work and sex work), the global institutions that maintain or intensify the vulnerabilities should be examined so that women are no lingered trapped in cycles and are empowered. o network of norms, practices, policies, and institutions that include transnational as well as national elements though the vulnerabilities can be modified and even reduced, network of factors overall serves to maintain and often intensify them

Week 3:
10. How, for Charles Beitz, are natural resources like talents? According to Rawls, natural talents are neither just nor unjust but simple facts. However, using these morally arbitrary facts (such as the class into which you are born) to distribute the benefits of social cooperation is unjust. o Those disadvantaged for reasons beyond their control cant be asked to suffer the pains of inequality when their sacrifices cannot be shown to advance their position in comparison with an initial position of equality. In the international case, the distribution of natural resources can be viewed as morally arbitrary in the sense that they are not deserved Nonetheless, countries still benefit or suffer from the distribution natural distribution of resources is a purer case of somethings being arbitrary from a moral POV than the distribution of talents. Not only can one not be said to deserve the resources under ones feet; the other grounds on which one might assert an initial claim to talents are absent in the case of resources, as well 11. What kind of original position test does Beitz use in his theory of international distributive justice?

First, Betiz assumes that even it nations were self-sufficient there would exist a problem in the distribution of natural resources. Additionally, he believes that there is substantial global interdependence in which some nations are advanced at the cost of others. In his first way of globalizing Rawls, Beitz argues for a global original position, in which parties do not know even whether they are distinct societies. He believes that the same principles would be agreed upon as in the domestic case; if not all nations were liberal democracies, Rawls general conception of justice in a global difference principle so at the very least could be agreed upon so that there would be an equal distribution of primary goods and maximized expectations for the least well-off. 12. What does it mean to say that we are failing our negative duties towards the worlds poor? Negative duties are duties to refrain from an action, and specifically to refrain from hurting others. Separate from negative duties are positive duties, or duties to perform actions, generally actions that will help others. Negative duties are taken to be stronger than positive duties, a viewpoint taken by Pogge. With regard to the global poor, wealthy countries are not simply failing to fulfill a positive duty by not providing aid; instead, they are actively causing harm and by not acting are failing to fulfill their negative duty. In other words, wealthy countries are violating the negative rights of the poor. 13. What is the Purely Domestic Causation of Poverty Thesis? What reasons does Thomas Pogge offer to think that this thesis is incorrect? (Give two reasons.) The PDPT says that poverty is the result of bad government as well as factors such as religious, philosophical ,and moral traditions Failure to thrive is often the result of the nature of the public political culture and the religious and philosophical traditions that underlie its institutions o Rawls argued for this See reasons below (why harm is being cause to the global poor) 14. Give two ways in which Pogge thinks that the global institutional set is causing harm to the worlds poor. Do you believe he is right? Explain your answer. (Ten points.) Pogge names 4 ways o 1. A shared and violent history We can explain much current poverty as the legacy of obvious unjust forms of colonial exploitation o 2. The Resource Privilege International rules allow whatever group is actually able to control a place to sell the resources in it, regardless of interests or needs to the inhabitants Incentivizes those who are able to muster the military force needed to silence the population o 3. The borrowing privilege The rules or international trade recognize any actual coercive regime as the proper spokesman of the populace This entails the right of the regime to borrow on behalf of the people, and oblige them even after the fall of the regime Individuals have incentive to take charge of the country, control its resources, run up debt, and then depart o 4. The effects of bias and inequality in shared institutions Membership in WTO, in practice, required for trading relationships WTOs interests are closely aligned with the interests of the wealthiest nations: wealthy countresi can exclude good s from poorer countries, while mandating that those poorer countries open their own markets Many countries not even able to send people to the WTO to argue their cases Oxfam:

Wealthy countries impose rules that benefit the wealthy, to the detrminet of the poor: rules that maximize foreign capital access at the expense of local workers, dumps of agricultural products, tariffs on goods from developing countries These rules keep the poor poor

15. Why does the notion of harm require comparison with a baseline? How does the notion of a baseline enter into criticisms of Pogges view? Pogge argues that the global order harms the poor, and this idea requires an analysis of what exactly it means to harm someone. We could conclude that harming is making someone worse off; to determine if someone is in fact worse off, we need a baseline of comparison. In this instance, we need a baseline comparison for the global poor. This baseline can be manifested in three different ways, the first two of which Pogge himself rejects. The historical baseline argues that the global order makes the poor worse off than they were before, but is simply not true since many fewer people are poor now and the global order has in fact helped people overall. Though there are injustices in the distribution of benefits, it cannot be said that the global order has cause harm. The counterfactual baseline argues that the global order makes the poor worse off than they could have been; this cannot be proven true or false since we have no idea what the world order would look like without colonialism. The moralized baseline states that we are harming the poor relative to what they have a right to expect. Pogge argues that it is easy to imagine a world in which severe inequality need not exist and in which global powers had chosen different priorities. Pogge uses this baseline and insists that by failing to provide people what they deserve, via the creation of a system that caused avoidable poverty and death, we have harmed the poor. But it could be argued that we are simply failing to do what is just and not the agents who are causing the poverty itself. 16. What is the difference between the type-cost of an action and the token-cost of an action? A token-cost is a one-time cost. A type-cost is a longer-term commitment with serial costs. Schmidtz argues that the type-result of aid to the poor is an encouragement of dependence on others. While a token cost can result in a pleasant one-time result, a type cost results in endless costs. 17. Give two objections made by David Schmidtz against Peter Singer. Charity creates moral problems for the beneficiary We dont actually know how to help People have right to moral self-development o Rules that are set up to facilitate property and commerce are necessary for the creation of wealth All the wealth were trying to redistribute is created by institutions focused on protecting property rights, creating regular expectations, and social trust; if we say that these should be fundamentally different, wealth will cease to exist 18. Explain the concept of moral hazard, and how it might relate to global poverty relief. Moral hazard is the idea the people will take more risks when they themselves do not have to suffer the consequences. Moral hazard is the unfortunate perversion of good intentions, summarized concisely by the phrase that charity deforms. With regard to poverty relief, Schmidtz would argue that by aiding the poor, we are in fact harming them by encouraging them to depend on us. As a result, they might take risks or engage in behaviors that they would not engage in were the aid not given. For instance, individuals may not have the means to support multiple children. But if aid is given to them, they might choose to have the children and add to the poverty of their nation. Were this aid not given, they would not make this decision.

Week 4:
19. Leif Wenar discusses several ways in which foreign aid may actively cause harm to foreign citizens. Briefly explain any two of these. In light of this, do you believe we should decrease foreign aid? Explain. (Ten points.) Wenars donors question, central to his paper, asks how money or time donated affects the longterm well-being of people in other countries. He provides four areas of concern, one being corruption and resource diversion. Because poor nations have ineffective state institutions, the donor money that enters nations most often flows towards those who have the most power; very little of the money slated for aid actually goes towards its original purpose. Additionally, money may indeed lead to corruption, with some nations experiencing higher levels of corruption as more aid was given. When working in poor nations, NGOs may need to essentially bribe the government to carry out projects, thus supporting authoritarian leaders or feeding bureaucratic corruption. Officials may make aid money available in return for political support. Another concern is governmental effects of aid. An increase in the amount of money a government receives allows that government to ensure its own security, which may negatively impact inhabitants of the society. The government may place a good deal of its focus on foreign donors or may use the money to directly purchase its security by killing those opposed to it. Much like Wenar, I agree that the question of providing aid is far from black and white: we are part of a complicated global system and our actions have consequences that we might not initially anticipate. However, I believe that our moral obligation to help other nations is so strong that we are obliged to look into how to most effectively give aid and create change. 20. Explain what Jeffrey Sachs means by clinical economics. Sachs argues that, because economists in recent years have learned so much about how countries develop and what limits their development, that a new form of development economics that is more grounded in science needs to develop. This type of clinical economics should parallel modern medicine in that economic pathologies are diagnosed and a wide variety of causes are recognized; this correct individualized diagnosis is crucial to delivering the correct treatment. With regard to nations, the causes can be as variable as corruption, gender, ethnic, or caste disparities, and diseases like AIDS. Once the diagnosis is made, a tailored prescription can be administered. 21. What is the distinction, for William Easterly, between planners and searchers? Planners are those individuals who believe that they had an answer that will work well for all countries and intend to apply it. Searchers do not believe that such answers exist and any intervention we hope to implement must earn its status as something worth doing. Searchers work on the local level, learning whats in demand and finding answers to individual problems through trial and error. Easterly argues that planners have been generally damaging to the world because they attempt to apply global blueprints with very little knowledge of whats going on at the local level, believing that outsiders have the ability to impose solutions. Much of foreign aid, Easterly contends, has been dominated by planners. 22. What is the Dutch disease? Why is this concept relevant for discussions of development? Originally, the term Dutch disease was used to describe the relationship between an increase in the exploitation of natural resources and the accompanying decrease in manufacturing. The term can be extended to refer to any development that results in a large inflow of foreign currency, including a sharp surge in natural resource prices, foreign assistance, and foreign direct investment.Moyo identifies Dutch disease as the large influx of aid money flowing into a country and subsequently diminishing the export sector due to the appreciation of local money. This killing off of the export sector seems to be a wellknown result of the aid model. Since the exporters are the ones who support the domestic economy as a whole, their lack of funds hurts the economy as a whole. 23. According to Moyo, what kinds of aid are likely to be least effective, and which kinds are likely to be most effective? Why?

o o o

She does not refer to humanitarian or emergency aid or charity-based aid given to specific organizations and people on the ground in order to achieve specific things She references systemic aid This question is referring to systemic aid; shes opposed to a CERTAIN type of aid

24. Give two ways in which the education of girls might lead to increased economic development. o Direct effects: market participation o Delayed age of first childbirth o Fewer children, with greater attention on each o Exit power leading to voice within marriage more likely to spend money on kids o Overall, educating girls makes world better for the next generation

Week 5:
25. Why, for Joseph Carens, should libertarians favor open borders? The idea that we as a nation control who can enter depends on collective or national property rights.3 But such an argument violates a core libertarian tenet: the primacy of the rights of the individual. As a government exists purely to protect citizens against violations of their rights, such as the right to acquire and use property, it itself cannot violate those rights. Thus, if I as an American invite a Mexican worker to my farm and in no way violate anothers rights in the process, the government cannot interfere in the exchange.5 Even if the presence of the Mexican means that an American will be unable to find employment, no individual is afforded the right to be protected against competitive advantage.5 While any farmer remains free to discriminate against certain workers or to band together with others in a community that restricts membership, neither farmer nor state can keep others from acting differently. 6 In essence, no states mandate extends far enough to allow it to exclude aliens from entering its territory. 26. Why might the issue of cultural diversity give us reasons to favor closed borders? How does Carens respond to this worry? Some might argue the open borders would lead to a decrease in cultural diversity and that no distinctiveness can exist without borders. Carens argues that diversity can flourish even in the absence of borders and that distinct societies can remain. For instance, countries in the European Union maintain their distinctness even though free movement is allowed within them. What makes for distinctiveness and what erodes it is much more complex than political control of admissions . 27. What does Wellman say is owed to those who seek refugee status? Wellman states that even when asylum seekers are actively threatened by their states, a state is has no moral duties to open its borders. Though he believes that affluent societies do have Samaritan and egalitarian duties to help the poor, he believes that these can be discharged in other ways: we can intervene in an unjust political environment or allow entry through immigration. If states fulfill these duties and care for enough people abroad, they have the right to admit no one. exception is that in emergencies we are required to allow people in 28. Describe the White Australia policy and Wellmans objection to it. Is this objection adequate, in your view? Why or why not? (Ten points.) White Australia is Australias former policy of admitting only white people. Wellmans theories might be compatible with racist interests in that a state can choose to admit people based on criteria such as race. Wellman focuses on the rights of those who are already part of the political community and argues that we have a duty to respect our fellow citizens as equal partners in the political cooperative. If a country instituted an immigration policy the excluded entry to members of a certain race, that policy would disrespect citizens in the dispreffered category. It is imperative to treat all citizens as equals, and this policy would fail to do so.

Can argue that when this is actually applied, that no one could ever keep anyone out 29. Why, for Carens, is Miguel Sanchez being treated unfairly? Sanchez has been in the country long enough to form roots and relationships, but, unjustly, still fears deportation. Carens considers the time that people have been in this country a justification for allowing amnesty because it serves as a proxy for the relationships that they have formed. In long spans of time, roots form that are relevant even if they were not initially sanctioned. After a number of years, immigrants should come to be treated as equals to other members of society. To force someone to be so vulnerable when his neighbors are not is unjust, and no one should have a life with this type of pain. Because Miguel has been in American long enough to be considered equivalent to other members of society, he should not unjustly burdened with fears that others are not burdened with. Compared to someone from a wealthier country, the situation is not completely fair considering the bad circumstances in Miguels country of origin. 30. What does Michael Blake think is wrong with Wellmans view of freedom of association? Use the idea of rights as trumps in your answer. Wellman has a simple deontic view of the freedom of association: he sees it as a trump right that is only able to be over come in case of catastrophe. Blake would argue that the American Supreme Court has historically considered the freedom of association with a complex deontic view, or as one right within a more complex set of political rights that are all derived from the norm that governments should treat all affected by their actions with equal concern and respect. When cases are between freedom of association and overcoming discrimination, the winner is a question of judgment and context. In the case of immigration, both the freedom to make a society comprised of who we want and the rights of individuals to be treated as such are important, and which one will give way depends on the case.

Week 6:
31. What, for Stephen Gardiner, is the idea of moral corruption? Why does climate change present a risk of moral corruption? Gardiner views moral corruption as manifesting itself in different ways that all threaten the discourse surrounding climate change. Out of the modes listed, he identifies unreasonable doubt and selective attention as the most relevant to climate change. Unreasonable doubt comes into play when, despite supported scientific findings existing and being continually solidified, the level of public doubt, perhaps due to disinformation campaigns and widespread misunderstanding of the role of legitimate skepticism in science, has increased. As a result, even as new science has emerged, the public has allowed increases in emissions. Selective attention applies because by imagining climate change to be only a spatial problem relating to states, we ignore the intergenerational storm by assuming that states represent the interests of future citizens, focus on factors that make action difficult (such as global politics), and undermine the ethical understanding of what we are doing by ignoring the effects of our current actions on posterity. Thus, it is easy to engage in behavior that is self-deceptive by considering only certain aspects of the situation. 32. According to Gardiner, climate change is a perfect moral storm, because it is a combination of three moral storms. Identify the three and explain each briefly. What do you think should be done to address the problems identified by Gardiner? Explain. (Ten points.) The global storm is the first component. Key to this storm are the dispersion of causes and effects (the effects of emissions are spread throughout the world and affect even those who dont contribute), the fragmentation of agency (climate change is caused by many institutions and individuals , so it is difficult to coordinate a response), and institutional inadequacy (the current global system allows for no enforcement mechanism). The idea of the fragmentation of agency can be illustrated through the tragedy of the commons (collective rationality versus individual rationality), which can be summarized by

saying that while no one wants serious climate change and all prefer the outcome of everyone restricting their emissions, each country prefers to free ride on the actions of others and by acting in their own interests they undermine collective interests. The intergenerational storm involves the same characteristics as the global storm, but are seen from an even more serious temporal perspective. This perspective notes that climate change impacts are back -loaded and will be most severe in coming generations, so while we may benefit now, future generations will suffer badly. This presents the purely intergenerational problem, in which while it is collectively rational for generations to cooperative it is individually rational to not do so. This problem means that inaction makes the current problem even more severe for future generations, causes future generations to suffer unnecessarily, and means that tragic choices will have to be made in the future. The final storm is the theoretical storm, which essentially means that we are ill-equipped to deal with problems characteristic of the long-term future. Even the best theories that we have struggle to deal with issues like intergenerational equity; cost-benefit analysis could not be applied because our responsibility to future generations is too poorly understood. Solutions strengthened global systems, reduced misinformation and increase discourse about the moral factors in question, reduce political inertia. Also, stronger international institutions would be very useful here.

Week 7:
33. Give two reasons why we might think that the United States is more powerful, within the United Nations, than the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The US is a permanent member of the security council, holding the power to veto security council resolutions over non-procedural issues (these declarations are legally binding; General Assembly must have things signed to create legal force). Thus, it inherently has more authority within the UN. Additionally, the UN is limited in practice in its ability to control the US. The UN relies heavily on the US for funding, giving the US an inordinate amount of power. As a result, the US can essentially ignore what the UN says. The DRC does not enjoy any of these luxuries within the UN. 34. Give two ways in which international law is different from domestic law. The two differ in how they are enforced. With international law, the same parties that are subjects of the law are the ones who enforce the law; this is not at all the case with domestic law. Because the enforcers and followers are one and the same, powerful states can ignore international law at will. They also differ in that while the idea of authority may be controversial on a domestic level, it is even more so on an international level. Authority is given to international law through consent, and this consent can be withdrawn; this is not the case with domestic law, where each individual is subject to the authority of the state whether they like it or not. 35. Michael Blake and George W. Bush both dislike the ICC, but for different reasons. Describe the differences between their views. Bush was in general hostile to the idea of treaty law and viewed the ICC as anti-democratic because it imposed a particular response to evil on all states. Philosophically, Bush believed American to be an exceptional nation, free from the judgment of others. No one, this line of reasoning suggests, is nearly as fit to judge us as we are to judge ourselves. Bush also feared the extradition of Americans in ICC-member states, leading the signing of the Rome Statute. Blake argues that the UN does not have a moral right to punish in instances where it has not had legitimate protective agency of victims. Thus, if the international community does not react strongly enough to state disintegration and violence, is loses its right to punish. For instance, the UN did not enough military force into Yugoslavia to effectively stop the war, so the UN has no right to prosecute its criminals. He clarifies that the perpetrators do deserve to be punished but that the questions is whether the ICC has the right to do so.

36. Imagine that one American punches another American on the steps of Suzzallo library. Provide two reasons why would the International Criminal Court would not be able to adjudicate this dispute. First and foremost, the US has not signed on to be under the jurisdiction of the ICC and has rejected it as undemocratic. America has resolutely rejected even the potential judgment of others. Second, the ICC prosecutes individuals for crimes much more severe than the one described: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Third, the ICC only has jurisdiction over these crimes when the government where the events occurred is unwilling or unable to prosecute: when a state a can respond on its own, it can do so. So even if adjudication was needed, this would most likely occur in an American court. 37. Give two ways, for Jamie Mayerfeld, in which the ICC can be of assistance to democracy. First, the ICC removes the freedom from punishment that often comes from being the recognized government of a sovereign state; with international rules as they are now, anyone who can destroy opposition simply becomes the ruler. The ICC alters those norms so that those who commit evil can be stopped. Second, the ICC supports the domestic legislation designed to make democracy work. Though the US rejects the ICC as undemocratic because of its impositions on states, this proves false as the ICC in fact forms a precommitment strategy in which democratic states make that statement that they want to stay democratic. Additionally, the ICC offers legal assistance to those places where the rule of law is suffering. 38. Jamie Mayerfeld believes that the EU was constrained by international legal institutions after 9/11, and the US was not. Give two things that the EU did that the US did not. Following 9/11, the EU member states were willing to allow inspection of their prisons and security installations. The US, on the other hand, refused inspection so that ghost prisoners and black boxes were only uncovered by the press. The EU member states also criminally prosecuted anyone who tortured since European anti-torture laws have substantial criminal penalties attached. The US, on the other hand, tried to give immunity to state agents by redefining the law and giving specific grants of immunity to agents of torture. Overall, the EU states are used to being legally subject to supranational court decisions while the US has removed even its own courts oversight of torture. 39. Should the US ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC? Explain why, being sure to say why you reject the arguments weve examined that might be argue against your view. (Ten points.) I believe that the US should ratify the Rome Statute and become subject to judgment under the ICC. Currently, the US has not only not signed the Statute, but has refused to militarily assist anyone who has and has passed the Hague invasion clause for cases of extradition. The US is insistent that it can judge for itself whether or not it has committed war crimes; I find this very concerning because our refusal to let others judge us could quickly lead to our own corruption and thus unfairness in decisions. If we are judging ourselves, then we will redefine, use selective evidence, and use other tricks so that our preconceived conclusions will fit. If we become part of the ICC, we will have access to impartial judges so that we can make decisions in a more ethical way. The US has also argued that the ICC is antidemocratic in that it imposes a particular response to evil on all states, but I agree with Mayerfield that the court is more in-line with supporting democracy, through removing the impunity held by arbitrary rulers, supporting pro-democracy legislation, and offering legal assistance. Other arguments are against the ICC as a body. Two of the criticisms against the ICC are, in my view, more reason for the US to join. It is true that the criminal court and international law have been used unequally and in a way that has targeted the weakest and most vulnerable states. However, those prosecuted have still been in the wrong and the injustices within the court do not mean that it is incapable of significant positive change. It is also true that there is a low probability of actual prosecution that might mean that there is little actual deterrence; if a nation as powerful as the US joins, however, the court may gain considerably more clout. An argument not necessarily about the US joining, but about the ICC in general, is that nations, in order to have the right to punish, must purchase this right by

doing enough to stop the crime in the first place (or help the victim). However, I believe that we should do everything in our power to help nations, and agree with Mayerfield that the most important aspect here is that the ICC might eventually become something very beneficial and that if weve failed in our duty to stop, we should at least do something to ameliorate the situation. ***lets worry more about how to make the ICC an effective institution and less about how to keep our hands clean.

Week 8:
40. In our discussion of world government, we discussed three authors, Peter Singer, David Held, and Will Kymlicka. For each of them we can ask: how do they understand the nature of citizenship? What is your view? If you agree with any of the three authors, explain why. If you do not agree with any of them, explain why not. (Ten points.) Because he favors a one world government, Singer sees the world in terms of global citizenship so that us encompasses all human beings. In his global democracy, everyone gets to vote and because we are all part of the same group, we show concern for everyone. He sees the idea of communities of fate, which distinguish between us and them as negative moral problem to overcome since they often resulted in conflict. He believes that we should care about people beyond our own community. Held sees the world in terms of divided citizenship so that us encompasses primarily citizens of the same democratic state. These states are then combined in a global federation with a democratically elected legislature. This provides a solution for transnational problems while preserving the idea of community. Kymlicka uses parochial citizenship to see us as members of our historically extended community. Since we are members of our own group, there is not a need for a global democracy; transnational institutions can be set up to deal with particular issues but do not require citizens involvement. I like Held the best: I think its part of psychology to need to identify wi th a certain group, but it would be best on a global scale to have transnational institutions. Plus, democracy should be supported. 41. Explain Helds idea of a cosmopolitan democracy. Held recognizes the effects of globalization, with its growing interconnectedness and intensification of relations, on political communities around that world and identifies sovereign nationstates as inadequate for coping with such changes. He believes that we need transnational institutions for a number of reasons, including the idea that the locus of effective power can no longer be assumed to be national governments, communities of fate (self-determining collectives) cannot be located within a single nation-state, the disjuncture of state authority and global economic systems, the idea that national sovereignty is not absolute, and boundary problems such as climate change. A better conception of global government, he argues, is a transnational democracy manifested as a community of democratic communities (multiple levels of government): an overarching global structure of democratic law would define the limited sovereignty of regional associations. Each individual would have a vote and a say in creating laws with global reach. He sees this as a means of buttressing democracy, This would likely be manifested as a representative democracy with elected officials, perhaps like the EU. 42. Give two reasons provided by Kymlicka to oppose a cosmopolitan democracy . First, making democracy make sense on an international scale would be a difficult task: democracy is more than simply than voting, but is instead a system of deliberation and legitimation. Voting is simply part of a larger civic process. Democracy requires public deliberation about issues and decisions legitimated on the grounds that they will help the common good, two processes that in turn require some commonality among citizens so that they can understand and trust one another. Thus, a sense of commonality may be required to sustain a democracy. Second, language is important in defining boundaries of political territories. Practically, perhaps linguistic groups are the primary forum for democratic participation because democratic politics is politics in the vernacular.

Week 9:

43. What is the cultural imperialism argument? (Hint: What is its starting point and what is its conclusion?) Why is that argument incoherent? (Hint: Why is its conclusion inconsistent with its starting point?) This argument begins with the idea that it was wrong for Western Europeans to be culturally imperialistic and impose their moral and religious norms on American natives. It is wrong, we continue, to judge the members of one culture by the norms of another. We reach an idea of extreme moral relativism or normative cultural relativism, where no one can ever be justified in objecting to or criticizing another culture. This leads to moral relativism about human rights. Now we must note that our first argument, that the actions of the Western Europeans were wrong, is itself a moral criticism of the Europeans. Since the conclusion was that it is never appropriate to criticize another cultures norms, the first assumption undermines it. If normative cultural relativism is correct, the imperialist was not in the wrong. The argument is incoherent. 44. As used in this course, what is meant by objective universality of human rights? As used in this course, what is meant by subjective universality of human rights? Subjective universality is universality based on agreement; human rights norms would be subjectively universal if their universality depended on their being accepted by all moral traditions or cultures. If human rights are based on this, very few would exist since there is little agreement in the world. Objective universality, on the other hand, does not depend on agreement; human rights norms based on this should be respected in virtue of the characteristics we all have as human beings, regardless of whether the rights are accepted by all moral traditions or cultures. For instance, by thinking that cultural imperialism is wrong, you are committed to a kind of objective universality. You can admit fallibility and still hold that some moral norms are objectively universal. 45. What is paternalistic intervention? Explain why Lee Kwan Yews political philosophy is paternalistic. In your answer, give examples of his policies that are paternalistic. Do you believe that there should be a universal human right for human adults to be free of paternalism? Explain. (Ten points.) In a Confucian system, the state plays a role like a father in a family: a benign dictator makes laws for the better of the people and enforces them whether or not the family agrees. Paternalistic intervention is used to force a target to do something that is good for him or her, even if he or she does not believe that it is good. Yew views the freedoms afforded to Western nations as detrimental to their societies and sees Eastern cultures as fundamentally different. Though he cites Western nations as helping Eastern nations develop, he also states that because we are all able to see the effects of Western life, we do not want all of the West. The rights of the West are parochial and not universal. Instead, because all states face different problems, we should preserve certain commonalities between peoples. In an ordered state, he believes people are best able to enjoy the freedoms that they are given. Yew enforced many paternalistic policies to maintain this type of state. Some were relatively minor laws against antisocial behaviors such as litering and smoking. Others were more severe: in his paternal state, Yew made homosexuality a very punishable crime and created strict birth control policies, setting up many family planning clinics, rewarding mothers who had fewer children and paying women who were sterilized after their second child. Ultimately, the paternal direction comes from an individual or a group of individuals. I do not believe that any person has the authority or right to direct others. All humans are fallible and I highly doubt that the benign dictators decisions would all be for the greater good. There can be no doubt that Singapore is an efficient state. However, I do not believe that that human freedoms sacrificed to create this state are worth it. 46. Both Lee and Mutua give cultural values priority over human rights. Explain why. How would Nussbaum respond to both of them. Which side of the argument do you agree with? Explain. (Ten points.) Lee views the paternalistic Confucian state as the best model for Eastern states considering their unique societies and histories. If this culture is emphasized and a well-structured state is created, then the abuses that come from maximal individual rights as seen in the US would not occur. This system can

occur in the East because it has a system in which families, run by fathers, are part of a wider society. Lee also places a premium on cultural identity, stating that each nation must address its problems differently. The individualism emphasized by human rights, Mutua argues, leads to the degeneration of communities, collectives, and groups. In Africa, the rights of these groups are deeply imbedded in the cultures of the people. Thus, the individual rights of citizens in a state must be addressed in the context of group rights; the rights of groups become important entitlements if the state wants to gain the loyalties of its citizens. Additionally, he views that emphasis on individualism in human rights as leading to grievous economic abuses. Both of these authors place weight on the value of family, a norm that often denies women equal status with men. Nussbaum argues that one subjectively universal cultural norm is the oppression of women. She states that though some aspects of culture are worth preserving, that of sex hierarchy, which results in great suffering, should not be elevated above human rights. Ideals of human rights, she states, are not Western but are instead found in many non-Western traditions. Though we need to understand local traditions and problems, she states, we also must keep in mind certain general values in evaluation womens lives in developing nations; when looking at any tradition, people will recognize truths that apply to them (respecting a culture is not the same thing as being a moral relativist). The West does not need to tell women that they should dislike being pushed around; they already dislike this and hope for the ability to plan and execute their own life plans. She uses the principle of each person as an end, in which every person should be valuable and worthy of respect so that the functioning of all people needs to be considered. I am in complete agreement with Nussbaum: I think OP should be on global scale, that people have the right to want to lead their own lives and avoid hopelessness. 47. What is Mutuas main objection to the individualism of human rights? Because of a runaway notion of individualism, Mutua states, human rights thinkers are unable to effectively moderate selfishness within community interests. Thus, Bill Gates, who holds enormous market power, perhaps enough to rival the government, is seen as a hero or wonderful success story. However, the fact that his economic empire exists contradicts and egalitarian notions. Political rights are valued at the cost of socioeconomic rights. The huge amount of wealth concentrated in a small amount of people means that the interests of the very rich as well as corporations are served; this system violates basic notions of human dignity. Instead of simply focusing on individualism, we should work to address the economic and social arrangements that create great disparities. Mutua views it as wrong that the Universal Declaration of Human rights cites private property as a human right, considering that much of the global South is being economically exploited by the West. 48. Why does Nussbaum reject each of the following as a standard for human rights: (a) GNP per person; (b) total or average utility; (c) resources (e.g., Rawlss primary goods). GNP faces a problem of distribution: much of the wealth may be distributed at the top while very little may be at the bottom. Using such an average makes it easy to ignore those who suffer at the bottom. Totally or average utility faces a similar problem as GNP: when taking the average, it is easy to forget or ignore certain groups. Additionally, the problem of adaptive preferences shows that people adjust their perceptions of their happiness and well being to what they have around them. Thus, women born into traditional societies who see no alternatives change their own perceptions to fit into the society. Rawls primary goods, or basic resources needed to carry out ones life plan, could have their distribution measured to determine if human rights are being followed. However, this presents the problem of different capabilities for translating resources into useful functioning: people vary in their abilities to convert resources into valuable functions and some people may need more resources to function at the same level as others. Additionally, simply giving people funds may not be the best way of aiding them. 49. Give an example of one of Nussbaums central human capabilities that is not included on previous lists of human rights. Do you believe that it should be included as a human right? Explain. (Ten points.)

Nussbaums central human capabilities are needed for becoming a fully capable human being; all people have a moral claim to develop these capabilities. These care not self-evident or culturally-evident but reflect consensus on the part of people with contradicting life views and thus form an objective theory of human rights the overrides cultural differences. They can, however, be realized in multiple ways and thus shaped to fit with local customs and beliefs. Some of the capabilities, such as life and bodily health, have been included on many lists of human rights. Play, on the other hand, seems to be a unique capability. Nussbaum simply states that people have the right to laug h, to play , and to enjoy recreational activities. Though I would not have thought of this right on my own, I believe that it could have very positive effects, especially in areas where women are on duty for virtually all of their time. Human rights should be more than just bare-bones, but should allow people the ability to flourish. Additionally, since Nussbam consulted so many people in creating these rights, they are clearly all valued by people across the world.

WEEK I Moral judgments are normative judgments about what is morally required, permitted, or prohibited; what is right or wrong; what moral duties we have and what acts breach them; what rights we have and what acts violate them. There are 2 types: o 1. Moral generalizations: Moral norm: generalization that applies to all acts of a certain kind (Killing is wrong.) Moral principle: generalization that applies to a wide variety of kinds of actions (The Golden Rule) Nagel: how would you like it if someone did that to you? o 2. Particular moral judgments: moral judgment about a particular actual or hypothetical case i.e. I have no moral obligation to try to prevent starvation of strangers in distant lands


Utilitarian: what is just is what leads to the best results (the most happiness) We are obligated to give to the point of equal marginal utility o Internationally, we are obligated to do much more than we have o Driven by examples: the drowning child is entitled to our help, and we are monsters if we dont provide help How are moral judgment and moral reasoning possible at all?

o o WEEK 2

Nagels answer: the basis of morality is a belief that good and harm to particular people (or animals) is good or bad not just for their POV, but from a more general POV, which every thinking person can understand Morality requires consideration of our effects on others from a more general POV (not just our own) and this requires impartiality of judgment Is there a single moral standard that applies to all societies? If not, are there universal moral standards? I.e. a universal standard of justice

Justice for the domestic case: Social contract theory of domestic justice: requirements given by 2 principles of justice- which emerge from the OP in which individuals are parties Social contract theory of justice because the fair terms of social cooperation are to be given by an agreement entered into by those engaged in it Fundamental: idea of society as a fair system of cooperation between free and equal persons o International justice: much less stringent requirements- which emerge from an OP in which peoples are parties o Driven by reflective equilibrium Theory of Justice for the International Case o Will it be a requirement of international justice that all societies be liberal (adopt 2 principles of justice)? o Will the principles of international justice simply be the extension of Rawls 2 principles to the international case? o Rawls: no, I want liberal democracies to be respectful of other countries, even if they are not liberal democracies, which precludes taking my theory as a good basis for foreign policy Principles of International Justice (pretty much made to avoid international conflict) 1. Peoples (as organized by their governments) are free and independent and their freedom and independence is to be respected by other peoples --. This does NOT imply that individual citizens are free and equal as they are in a liberal state 2. Peoples are equal and parties to their own agreements 3. Peoples have the right of self-defense but no right of war 4. Peoples are to observe a duty of nonintervention 5. People are to observe treaties and undertakings 6. Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions on the conduct of war (assumed to be in selfdefense) 7. Peoples are to honor human rights Requirements for a well-ordered hierarchical regime: 1. Peaceful and gain its legitimate aims through diplomacy and trace, and other ways of peace 2. System of law is sincerely and not unreasonable believed to be guided by a common good conception of justice. It takes into account peoples essential interests and imposes moral duties and obligations on all members of society . a. Doesnt need to be democratic, but needs to have a reasonable consultation hierarchy b. Societies have different conceptions of justice 3. Respects human rights: certain min rights to means of subsistence and security (the right to life), to liberty (freedom of slavery, serfdom, and forced occupations) and (personal) property, as well as to formal equality as expressed by the rules of natural justice (for example, that similar cases be treated similarly) a. These are very minimal rights! The Law of Peoples Contains: o


No requirement that states guarantee liberal or democratic rights (only Rawls human rights) No requirement of fair equality of opportunity o Look at status of women in decent hierarchical society) No difference principle: no need to justify social and economic inequalities between nations o Only a duty of humanitarian assistance to peoples who are not well-ordered Does international justice require that all societies be liberal democracies? Does it require that citizens of the globe be citizens of a single global democracy? o State religion, even one that results in unequal freedoms for member so society, ok as long as no religions are persecuted or denied civic and social conditions that permit their practice in peace and without fear o Rawls says no A decent, hierarchical society need not be democratic and need not guarantee liberal rights Does international justice require that all societies guarantee dfair equality of opportunity? Does it require equal rights for men and women? o No, because it decent society government may be based on a religious conception of the common good that may sharply curtail womens rights outside the home Does international justice require a global difference principle? o No only obligation members of the law of peoples have to other societies is duty of assistance towards those unable to have well-ordered society o One this level reached, no other distributive constraints, thus no limits on inequality between different societies Lecture: poverty is largely the result of each countrys domestic pol itical culture and spending decisions

Jagger Transnational gender disparities In international economy, women often expected to do work that is unpaid, and even when they have paying jobs, they tend to work in jobs that are not unionized and that have no way to effectively bargain for reasonable working conditions and pay o Other siaprities: political participation, literacy rates, suspetibility to harassment and violence WEEK 3 Beitz: Justice applies to any benefits that any benefits that one gets by virtue of birth o In this approach, even question of natural resources is relevant o If parties are states, boundaries and ownership are already assumed Distributive principle to the world as a whole Beitz argument: 1. Rawls Assumption of National Self-Sufficiency o Even if (contrary to fact) nations were self-sufficient and trade and other economic relations among nations were negligible, there would still be a problem of justice in the distribution of natural resources 2. Fact on International Interdependence o In fact, there are substantial international economic and trade relations among all (or almost all) the nations in the world this argument even stronger now than when Beitz first made it o Because of this trade, some societies are able to increase their level of well-being via global trade and investment while others with whom they have economic relations continue to exist at low levels of development

Theres a level of interaction at which principles of justice come into play; no country is selfcontained Due to this econ and political interdependence, world can be considered one large-scale system of cooperation. What principles of justice apply? 2 ways of globalizing Rawls: o Apply 2 principles of domestic justice to the global community Everyone takes the original position 1st: requires single liberal democracy for the entire world or a democratic confederation of liberal democracies 2nd: requires fair equality of opportunity over the entire globe and requires that institutions are arranged to maximize the expectations of the last well-off group in the world o Globalize general conception of justice (global difference principle): Conception of justice that applies to undeveloped societies before they reach the stage of development at which democratic rights become important Global difference principle: all social primary goods - liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect- are to be distributed equally unless and unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least well-off Does not require single liberal democracy, but requires that institutions be arranged to maximize the expectations of the least well-off group in the world This principle comes into play as more transactions take place because resultant political and economic structures acquire great influence over the welfare of the participants, regardless of the extent to which any particular one makes use of the institutions

Is there an obligation to help?: Pogge (and Oxfam) Its not a question of how do we help the global poor; theres a causal story saying were causally responsible for the poverty that people have Negative and positive duties o Positive: to help someone o Negative: to not harm someone (duties to not do things) Traditionally, people think that these are stronger We need to stop actively hurting people Duty to not harm If we think of our obligations as merely obligations to help we miss a more urgent moral issue: we are actually harming the global poor, and we should stop! David Schmitz Not only do we have no obligation to help, our help can actually hurt others We might cause more harm than good Obligation to our own community One kind of libertarian. Telling everyone what to does violence to everyone and to my ability to build a life WEEK 4 Wenar The donors question is the theoretical heart: how will each dollar that I give, or each hour I give in time, affect the long-term well-being of people in other countries? Concludes that we need to do more research in how to help International aid can actually cause corruption o A lot of things can go wrong: corruption, disrupting local economies

We are likely to cause some damamge to people, even as we help others- adnd this is not an excuse to try

Sachs We now have some knowledge about what makes poor countries wealthy since weve seen them develop We have the beginnings of a clinical economics Tasks: jump-start countries until they are able to compete in the global economy, at which point development is no longer needed The changes he recommends require doubling of the global aid budget Propositions: o 1. We have enough knowledge of how to make poor counties rich: we should impose the right recipe on them, all at once o Foreign aid is likely to be of benefit in this process, and more aid will lead to more development Easterly Sachs proposals presume we know a very great deal about what will happen in very complex systems. In fact all the history we have is very specific, and might not translate. o They ignore: ceteris paribus: all else being equal o In a complex system of institutions, all things are NOT equal Emphasis on arrogance of Sachs project Developmentalism o Development has become and ideaology with its own norms and institutions, and it does not brook dddisobedience o We have reason, though, to b more cautious than we have been about imposing the norms of development upon others Solutions similar to Sachs: transportation, public health, fertilizing land o The difference is in how there are understood: instead of doing them as part of a plan, we have to do each intervention as a solo piece to see if this works here o Foreign aid CAN be useful if we are willing to be more humble about what we think we know Moyo Non-disaster aid has actually lead to the absence of growth in Africa; more people are below the poverty line now than in the 1970a o 1. Aid has allowed African leaders to abdicate responsibility for their citizens security and prosperity o 2. Foreign aid instead has allowed these leaders to maintain their power over these citizens by purchasing military power and loyalty o 3. Dutch disease o 4. Aid has encourage civil war and conflict by offering a prize to be taken by those who gain power What to do? o Stop development aid Enormous risk here what if withdrawl doesnt lead to good governmance? o Encourage African countries to participate in the capital markey on terms equivalent to other countries o Encourage African countries to partner with less iealogocailyl ambitious countries in making plans o Demand that governments come up with plans to show how they will protect the intersts of their citizens: education, health care, infrastructure, physical security: all should be provided by governments, not outsiders Kristof and Wudunn Investing in women and girls gives one a better return Women can actually enter the workforce

o More money o Kids later o Better terms within marriage because they can LEAVE Not enough to just open a school and expect everyone to rush in o Actually need to change the norms

WEEK 5 Carens We dont have right to keep people out: morally impermissible o Ultimately gives a rawlsian argument Wellman Liberal demodractic communinity has right to keep out EVERYONE Restrictions reflect our right to associate with who we want to Blake Overestimation of freedom of association Carens Assumptions that he didnt concinve you in the first part At very least: people who are here without legal right get the right to state simply in virtue to long stay have to agree its wrong to kick people out once theyre here s Mayerfield Treaties about tortures explanation for why European countries did not cozy up to torture the way we did after 9/11 o Europeans agreed to things in treateies with teeth o Constarian unjust practices ICC o Way to insist ahead of time that we wont stray from democracy Thinks both of these will do good things have powerful implcaitons Blake ICC Crimes Persons o Citizenship of member states o Within member state territory o Security council Complimentarily o Domestic government unwilling or unable to address domestic cases themselves o Only then can the ICC take action o Thus, ICC is the last resource International vs cdoemstic law: this can be found in the lecture slides Domestic Legal system 1. We know what counts as law and what doesnt 2. The process by which the law is created gives us some reason to think its morally powerful 3. The law is effectively able to control the actions of all the people within the jurisdiction All of these are controversial within domestic legal system and even more so on international level International Law; what makes something a norm of international law? Statue of ICC says: 1. International treaties 2. International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law 3. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations

4. judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law Considerable more controversy as to what is and isnt law Authority of International Law What makes a norm binding on a state is the fact that it describes what states usually do States can avoid being bound by norms by refusing their consent o Consent can be withdrawn The only exceptions are norms such as prohibitions of genocide, slavery, torture Treaties, if valid, can be cited as law in the US- international law can become, in this way, part of domestic law Enforcement of international law Through state action; the same parties that are the subjects of law are also those who enforce it This is unlike the case of domestic law This means that powerful states may sometimes be able to ignore international law with something like impunity: the US invasion of Iraq International law and international treaties The most central norms are the customs of states, and the consent of states These two allow states to agree with one another to coordinate their behavior in certain ways: they can use treaties to change their obligations They may agree to do or not do certain things: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, say They may agree to set up bodies with the power to adjudicate disutes, or set norms that shall be followed: the WTO The UN Most central international body, set up by treaty after end of WWII o Contains many working parts. Note that the security council has 5 permanent member, who have the power to veto security council resolutions. o Temporary members do not have same rights o SC can authorize the use of force Declarations of the Security Council are legally binding; declarations of the General Assembly are not Seeks to avoid war, by centralizing the decisions to go to war o Article 42 allows SC to authorized the use of force Article 51 allows member states the inherent right of individual or collective self -defense The UN and US (in answer below) Example of US power: with regard to Nicaragua, US withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction of the ICC Since then, it has vetoed any security council attempts to enforce earlier judgment The EU Union of 27 states, that is formally a treaty body but which has created powerfdul supra-national institutions o EU Parliament o European Currency Union o Schengen area with free movement for all In some senses it is still a treaty body; explicit consent of the member states is the justification for all these institutions In other senses, it is something like a federal state Other Euro institutions cover different groupsing: states covered by Euro Court of Human Rights Winner nobel peace prize in 2012 ICC Created by treaty under authority of the UN Legally independent of the UN

First attempted to make a permanent international court of justice following Nurenmery and ICTY/ICTR First criminal tribunal that is permanent; one of the only places in which internation law deals with individual persons o Genocide attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a community o Crimes against humanity that which shocks the conscience o War crimes violation of the laws of war Mayerfield Europe and US o Euro intergration created a network of legal institutions above the national level, some of which have been given enormous power o Wide network of commitments to refrain from torture, and a set of institutions ddesigned to prevent torture o US is hostile- much more hostil, towards internation law see as eroding sovereignty The US and torture o The US has signed the UN convention against torture and other crueltreatment o Bush said we dont torture, but we defined this so as to exclude only that sort of pain producing organ shutdown International human rights treaties and torture o The US is hostile to treaty law, and the US was more willing to engage in torture after 9/11 o If Mayerfield is correct, these 2 are related: our willingness to decide for ourselves what counts as torture has led us to be willing to redefine the practice until we are able to do what we want Redefining torture o US wants internation treaty law to be subject to domestic law, and so read the Torture Convention through the lens of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) o This, in turn, was read through the history of American punishment, which has often been fairly brutal o This primed the US to argue that the only prohibited torture under the Conscience is that which would shock the conscience of an American Hostility to judicial oversight o Euro member states are used to being legally subject to supranational court decisions; see the condematnion (as not torture, but ill-treatment) of British abused of IRA suspects o US, in contrast, has removed its own judicial systems oversigh, and refuses to allo w any other judicial system to have authority Refusal to allow inspection o Euro states were willing to allow their prisions and security installations to be inspected o US was not; they acknowledgment of ghost prisioners and balck sites was promted by the press, not the force of the lway Refusal to criminally prosecute o Euro anti-torture laws have substantial penalties attached o US has tried, instead, to give immunity to state agents, by redefining the law and by giving specific grants of immunity to agents Conclusion o Euros set of human rights treaties was an important in preventing Euro states in engaging in torture after 9/11 o US failed, and their failure was due in part to their refusal to be so bound Implicitly: they should increase the number and strength of their human rights treaties) 1st:response Do we ever have a reason to torture? o Mayerfield: we never do because it is inhuman o Dershowitz: sometimes it is rational so we should have torture warrants

reply: o There are some things you cant do, even in the name of important goods o Torture doesnt get good info o To torture, wed have to build up infrastructure of torturers 2nd response: do treaties make a difference? o Hathaway argues treaties will lead to MORE torture o Moral balancing: we give ourselves permission to be bad in one area of life, when were convinced were earned points in another Reply: all this assumes that treaties are merely verbal; we ought to give our treaties teeth! o Response: is power or ethics doing the job in these treaties? Are countries afraid of being coerced, or of being ashamed, when they breach In Europe, both would work: want to impress and dont want to be coerced In US, neither might work: solution might demand change in American attitudes International criminal tribunals o ICC: created by Rome Statute in 1998 o Has jurisdication over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes WHEN government in which those events occur is unwilling or unable to prosecute Where a state is able to respond to its own evils, it keeps right to do so Pro-ICC o It removes impunity of soverign agents when they commit radical eveil o Pogge: anyone able to destroy opposition just becomes the ruler of a palce under internation rule s o ICC alters thosde rules, to suggest that some forms of evil ought to be stopped o Helps commitment to democracy Extradition o US worries its citizens will be extradited to the ICC when they are arrested for being in a member state o Mayerfield: this owrry implie that the US wants to have the right to judge for itself whether or not it has commited war crimes We have reason to worry about the fairness of this o US wont give military assistance to anyone who signed Rome Statute o In dfact, if someone is detained, US will go to war without approval from congress (Hague invasion act) o We wont allow others to potentially judge us this could bring epic corruption (immune from words of others) Subject to enormous corruption: redefine, use selective evidence, ddeploy tricks External criminal procedure prevents this by using neutral judges First response: global equity and law o Look at states from which people have been extradited: DRC, Uganda, Kenya, etc. This form of justie is not equal and gives us reason to worry o The imposition of criminal procedure here is from core to periphery; the weak and vulnerable remain so Not to say ICC is wrong, but it isnt full justie o Response: dont let perfect be the enemy of the good 2nd: probablitliy and deterrence o ICC argues that it is able to remove impunity from leaders, thereby making human abusdes more costly to leaders o This might be true if there was a high probability of actually facing criminal sanctionsand there isnt Very dfew people actually treid o Tribunal isnt perfect, and should probably be more powerful o Is this a legitimate threat eventually it will be 3rd reponse: the right to punish

Why does UN have right to punish these peope? Is it enough that they are bad people? o Acquiring a right to punish We have to establish that we have done certain things for the victim, before we have the right t punish the oppressor Right to punish purchased at price of doing enough to stop crime in the first place Now that we have the right? o Police services and judicial services are inextricably linked; we cannot provde only the latter, when we fail to provide the former We have before not provided enough military right o To punish when we dont have right might make us feel good, but it is akin to proving that ourherat is in the right place this usually means weve failed Problems with this argument: o If weve failed in our duty to stop, perhaps we should do something we dont have a right to do o Might become beneficial to the world, perhaps we should worry more about that and less about keeping our hands clean o