Search

This paper recognizes that emerging military technologies in the 21st century are being innovated, adapted and used at an unprecedented rate in a culture of technological uncertainty which provides very little time for introspection and minimal governance. Even a cursory review of the contemporary governance architecture regarding these technologies reveals a disturbing lack of consensus regarding the necessity for governance and the methodologies to be utilized to achieve it. There is, however, considerable professional, national and international infrastructure upon which to hang a regime of articulated goals and proscriptions, if the political will could be energized to engage in such a project. This paper reviews that infrastructure and suggests that it provides an appropriate starting point for technology governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My paper for presentation is a second draft (first draft was presented at BISA 2007) of the theoretical framework chapter for a longer project with the working title 'Consequentialist evaluation of security for cooperative International Society'. This project builds on my existing work where I have argued that security studies must be concerned with the consequences or effects of securitisation and desecuritisation, making a case for the existence of positive and negative securitisation and desecuritisation. Positive and negative hereby are derived from what in moral philosophy is known as a consequentialist ethic whereby an action's moral rightness is to be judged by its consequences, for security thus, the hitherto largely ignored question of securitisation for whom takes centre stage. So far, I have completed this, what I call 'consequentialist evaluation of security' for the environmental sector of security only [Floyd, Rita (2007) 'Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: Bringing together the Copenhagen School and the Welsh School of Security Studies, Review of International Studies 33(2) & Floyd, Rita (2007) Typologies of Securitisation and Desecuritisation: The case of US environmental security 1993-2006 unpublished doctoral thesis University of Warwick]. My paper for presentation at this conference is the theoretical framework for the consequentialist evaluation of security for the remaining sectors of security, identified by the Copenhagen school of security studies as military, societal, economic and political security [Buzan, Barry et al (1998) Buzan, Barry; Waever, Ole; de Wilde, Jaap (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis (London: Lynne Rienner)]. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While much attention has been dedicated to the economic and political dimensions of hegemony, there has been little interest in its moral character. Yet hegemony has often been draped in the trappings of universal morality: we need only look to the recent debates over the morality of the recent American-backed intervention in Iraq to find an intimate connection between the claim of moral hegemony and the practice of political hegemony. This paper explores the role of moral hegemony in a different aspect of contemporary international politics?that of economic globalization. Two very potent phrases have begun to appear in the statements of financial leaders in recent years: universal standards and civilizing globalization. Both have occurred in the context of recent debates around the future of international financial governance. What makes these two phrases particularly interesting, however, is the fact they are both very new and very old. On the one hand, they represent a significant departure from the neutral and technical language that we have come to associate with international financial governance, appealing instead to more explicitly moral conceptions of international order. On the other hand, they echo a much older concept?that of the standards of civilization?which was employed by European states in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to justify the imposition of European standards and laws around the world, supporting an earlier phase of globalization. By examining the parallels and discontinuities between nineteenth and twenty-first century conceptions of standards of civilization, I hope to make further sense of an empirical puzzle: the current move by IMF representatives, among others, to frame economic globalization in the explicitly universalist ethical terms of civility, responsibility and ownership. At the same time, I will seek to tackle a broader theoretical question: whether we are witnessing an attempt to build a new moral hegemony to both support and obscure the politics of globalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thomas Hobbes is typically associated in international relations theory with the realist tradition. Conversely, he is often depicted as hostile to the idea of morality in international affairs and to the just war tradition in particular. It is curious then that Hobbes associated his own project quite closely with that of Hugo Grotius, the so-called father of International Law, and that later just war thinkers such as Pufendorf and Vattel engaged rather vigorously with Hobbes? work. Indeed, even in the 20th century, Michael Walzer treats Hobbes? thoughts pertaining to anticipatory war alongside these more standard just war thinkers, as does Richard Tuck. Perhaps this is not surprising when once considers that Hobbes was concerned with the question of when the use of force is appropriate in international relations, and that he invoked the idea of natural law in his writings. Hobbes? enquiries, then, were constituted to some degree by just war-oriented questions. Yet there is also good reason for deeming Hobbes an alien to the just war tradition. For a start, the response which he offered to these just war questions suggest a negation of the very idea of just war. His conviction that international affairs reflects a war of all against all precludes even the possibility of a tranquillitas ordinas, a touchstone commitment within the just war tradition. This paper will examine how we may relate Thomas Hobbes to the just war tradition. It will pay particular attention to how we construct the parameters of the just war tradition as to include or exclude a thinker such as Thomas Hobbes. According to J.G.A. Gunnell, traditions, such as that of the just war, comprise nothing more than retrospective analytical constructions which produce a rationalized version of the past. He argues that they represent mythologies composed by those who invoke them. Moreover, each and every such mythology is designed to serve particular ends, to privilege some reading of history or other, and to provide us with a crib-sheet for dealing with the problems facing us today. Inevitably, each such reading serves to circumscribe the potential development of the tradition in question in different ways. For instance, they may posit the recognition of some timeless truths or normative commitments as constitutive of the tradition, or they may associate the tradition with the heritage of a cluster of carefully selected classical thinkers. Accordingly, where new thinking strays from these templates it may be disregarded as falling beyond the bounds of the tradition. This has been the fate of Thomas Hobbes. This paper looks to examine why this has been the case. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International ethics, law and politics arise within a conceptual framework of civilization/barbarism and peacetime/wartime. This framework incorporates a myth of unitary, unproblematic masculinity -- 'warrior man'/'economic man' -- whose world is not in fact bifurcated by a war/peace distinction, but is rather one world of competitive, aggressive, self-interested and somewhat paranoid strategic interaction. While this masculinized being has an obvious relation to sex, gender and sexuality, it is curiously prior to the gender binary. Indeed a projection from 'within' this masculinized being (of woman as an 'other') is the foundation of the gender binary as such. As the foundational 'man' in the human, the humane and the humanitarian, this figure is also the source of the animal, machine and divinity projections through which 'man's' characteristics are given metaphorical reality in language. This occurs both as 'outward' projections through which 'othering' takes place (from which real 'others' are then identified in graded categories) and as recursive re-projections through which the myth of the unified masculine being is itself animated. The 'man' in the human, the humane and the humanitarian is the locus through which power-flows negate the moral categories (in declarations and conventions of rights and protections) that -- far from being genuinely respected -- are themselves subverted by the destructive peace/war and civilization/barbarism dichotomization of human experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on ethical intervention in western politics. It is said that the lack of concentration of the war on terror emphasizes the problems of articulating a national interest in international or domestic politics. It is suggested that neither traditional realism nor idealist constructivism can fully apprehend the emergence of moral and ethical concerns today due to the explanation for this shift away from the articulation of national interests cannot be located in the international sphere.

As part of an overall focus on governance in international political economy, the corruption issue has catapulted from the margins of academic and policy discourse on international affairs to a position as one of the central problems facing transition economies and the developing world today. But the irreducibly normative character of anti-corruption discourse is in tension with the predominantly rationalist, technical and instrumental justifications for open markets which have come to dominate the academic and institutional discourse on international political economy. The omissions and oversights of neo-liberal discourse lead analysts to evade and obscure, rather than directly engage, core problems of politics and ethics; this may have practical consequences for anti-corruption efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Should U.S. political decision-makers decide to wage a moral war, it is not as easy a merely saying ?go do it.? To ensure moral targeting decisions, national political leaders must suffer the costs of monitoring in terms of time and money, and provide not only detailed direction, but also constant oversight to ensure objectives are clear and subordinates carry out directions. Military officers must ensure that their motivations align with those of their principals, and they must ensure that constraining doctrine for planning and executing combat operations is followed. Having satisfied these variables, moral targeting decisions, wherein proportionality of non-combatant casualties is weighed against target necessity, should then be easily attainable. The process of aligning motivations with respect to desired outcomes, and the process of planning strategies according to doctrine together lead to moral targeting decisions. By following the processes of getting war plans approved according to published US doctrine, a deliberate dialogue is followed with direction and feedback through several steps of planning and approval that result in multiple people working on a product that obtains a sort of corporate ?buy-in?. I posit that it is difficult to follow this process and end up with targeting decisions that do not weigh harm to non-combatants against the necessity of individual targets, especially when principals and agents come together to deliberately ensure they align their motivations with respect to objectives. Through case studies of Desert Storm (the first Gulf War), Operation Allied Force (NATO?s air war over Serbia), and the US War on Terror (campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq), I find that only in the War on Terror were moral targeting decisions made. Furthermore, that was the only case studies wherein both constraining doctrine was present and principal-agent motivations were aligned with respect to objectives. The other two cases showed that the variables were not followed and proportionality-necessity decisions were not made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines a crucial issue in Hannah Arendt’s thinkingâ€"that of the relationship between morality and times of political crisis. It argues that her work as a whole is marred by a fateful discord involving this central problematic. The initial ins ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If ethics are often treated as marginal to global politics, then they are doubly excluded from analyses of global economic governance: here, the traditional division between the domestic as the site of politics and the international as a realm of amoral relations is compounded by a second division between politics and economics. Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank rely on such distinctions when their leaders insist on the essential neutrality of their efforts to manage global economic affairs. Although political economists have challenged these institutions? claims to political neutrality, they have rarely questioned their appeals to ethical neutrality. Yet moral assumptions and moral arguments do in fact play a crucial role in economic governance. The paper challenges the sustainability of the double denial of ethics in economic governance, pointing to the normative assumptions underpinning the very separation between the international and the domestic and politics and economics. The role of moral assumptions in economic governance, from the most basic premises of economic theory to more complex efforts to sustain legitimacy for economic governance strategies, is examined. The conclusion demonstrates the practical role of moral arguments in economic governance both historically and today. Although ethics have always played a central role in economic governance, we are witnessing an important shift today as international economic institutions have begun to move away from their traditional appeal to technical neutrality and become increasingly explicit in their use of moral arguments. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In modernity, the ethics of academic disciplines has been understood either as the essentially subjective choice of the investigator (Weber) or the internal normativity of the disciplinary community (Kuhn). Critical theorists, alternatively, situate academic ethics in the political functionality of academic disciplines in state and corporate power (Chomsky). The interdisciplinary turn of international studies, especially the turn to ?global studies? to encompass non-state centered forms of power and governance, appears to limit the usefulness of these modernist accounts of academic ethics. Positivist subjectivism, dependent upon the foundation of a neutral method of investigation, seems naïve in the context of the diversity and complexity of global interactions and cross-cultural understandings, along with the eclecticism of global studies, resists the limits inherent in the formation of a ?paradigm? of global studies. The critical theorists, while usefully contextualizing academic knowledge in political and economic power, have limited appreciation for the ways academic knowledge simultaneously implicates the academic researcher and teacher in neoliberal power and overflows the boundaries of neoliberal dictates, making possible resistances and alternative democratic projects. This paper explores the moral ambiguity inherent in the position of the academic study of contemporary global studies: the simultaneous complicity of academics in the networks of neoliberal power that inhere in our positions within universities, professional disciplines, and the norms of interdisciplinarity and the possibilities for critical practices the production of knowledge in contemporary universities opens up. The choice of what to study and how (e.g. to study the comparative advantage of poor states utilizing market models that rationalize neoliberal strategies of development or to study alternative, local development projects that democratically empower local communities by means of ethnographic studies of local knowledge) are not ?free? subjective choices but are conditioned by 1) the history of the university and the ties of academic knowledge to power in modernity; 2) the neoliberal transformation of the university into entrepreneurial and corporatized institutions (which help to determine funding, publishing venues, and research priorities; and, 3) the neoliberal trend toward the privatization of knowledge. Academic knowledge in global studies is too often complicitous in the injustices, cruelties, and inequalities of neoliberal globalism. But how to resist this and reconstitute global studies as an ethically defensible practice is neither simple nor clear-cut. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the politics of memory as it plays itself out in the public spaces of colonial and ex-colonial states. Given a history of brutal exploitation, sometimes extermination, of other peoples, cultures and places, how do colonial states produce, remember/dismember and memorialize their violent pasts? What are the ways in which multiple histories of a violent orientation to the other are interpreted, revised and disseminated in order to fit global understandings of ethics and justice? How are deviations from such understandings policed in the writings of the histories of the colonial state? I look at some of the ways in which Western states have dealt with the problematic and deeply troubling legacies of colonialism and colonial history. I focus, inparticular, on the specific ways in which they have sought to insulate or erase their histories of violence by presenting them as accidental to deeper narratives of national and cultural identity. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the charge that scholars in the field of ethics in international relations have been remiss in not paying attention to tragedy in international affairs. The classical tragedies in drama had political content and were fundamentally concerned with ethical issues. Prima facie it would seem that tragedy would be pertinent to scholars researching international ethics. The case is made that the notion of tragedy is useful in normative international relations theory as it enables us to see ethical dilemmas clearly and to consider possible transformations of our international practices. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hannah Arendt writes of the shifting relationship between the vita activa and the vita contemplativa from ancient Greece to the emergence of the modern age. For Arendt, vita activa comes to dominate with the rise of science and instrumental rationality where to act is to fabricate the conditions that enable domination. There is, however, an excess to being human, living in the world, and that is the capacity to think, for thought is, according to Arendt, the expression of political freedom. Nowhere and at no other time is the juxtaposition of the vita activa and the vita contemplativa more pronounced than at exceptional times, and more specifically in time of war. Using the recent war against Iraq as a point of departure, the paper investigates intellectual engagement in time of war, arguing that specific forms of ethical engagement portray an expression of emergence from a subjection that seeks either to silence or to celebrate a totalising instrumentality. Such emergence reveals the deepest interstices of power just as it articulates a sense of self. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I review the respective claims of Frost, Mayall and Rengger about the normative benefits of knowledge of tragedy and the potential of global civil society to transform the international system. I argue that Thucydides and Morgenthau were more optimistic about the ability of human beings to learn from art, history and experience. They believed ? as do I ? that tragedy is part and parcel of the human condition, and will always be with us for the reasons Frost so effectively summarizes. This does not preclude significant improvements in human rights and conflict management at the domestic and international levels. Pessimistic outlooks on such prospects are all too readily made self-fulfilling, so it is important that we commit ourselves to this goal independently of our estimates of ultimate success. These expectations, and our behavior, should nevertheless be tempered by sensitivity to the causes and consequences of tragedy. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]