... Given the extreme threat posed by perfect terrorism, it is necessary for the hegemon, in ... ... more ... Given the extreme threat posed by perfect terrorism, it is necessary for the hegemon, in ... suggests that just war theory may have some prob-lems with humanitarian intervention, suggesting that ... but at the same time no basis for denying that preventive intervention is justified. ...
The law of nations may be deduced, fi rst, from the general principles of right and justice appli... more The law of nations may be deduced, fi rst, from the general principles of right and justice applied to the concerns of individuals, and thence to the relations and duties of nations. In the last chapter, we discussed jus ad bellum under the national defense paradigm, according to which only defensive war is justifi ed. Given the priority principle, which is part of this idea of just cause, the fi rst use of force is never justifi ed. 3 This understanding of just cause is different from that during much of the history of the just war tradition. In particular, the just war paradigm, which characterized the tradition through the seventeenth century, did not accept the priority principle, and aggression was not the only wrong that could justify war. In this chapter, we continue our discussion of jus ad bellum by examining whether there is a need to revise our account of just cause in ways more consonant with the just war paradigm. In recent decades, a number of wars have been justifi ed on humanitarian grounds. A humanitarian intervention is a war launched to rescue persons in another state suffering under a grave humanitarian crisis, such as genocide, mass enslavement, starvation, or ethnic cleansing, usually at the hands of their own government. Among the recent interventions Sovereignty and human rights
In the U.S. and other parts of the Western world, liberal democracy is being challenged by populi... more In the U.S. and other parts of the Western world, liberal democracy is being challenged by populism. We see vividly every day the impact that populism is having on democratic practice, but what about its effect on democratic theory? An eruption of populism is a permanent possibility in representative democracies, and this causes serious trouble for two leading types of democratic theory, deliberative democracy and aggregative democracy. If my arguments are correct, we may be left without a normative democracy theory that satisfies basic moral requirements.
Dictators is an excellent book that constitutes a significant leap forward in the study of author... more Dictators is an excellent book that constitutes a significant leap forward in the study of authoritarian regimes and international security. Importantly, the book reveals that not all dictators are alike. In fact, some are not dictators at all but rather face real constraints on their freedom of action. Others, by contrast, resemble the stereotypical despots who attack their neighbors on a whim but cling tenaciously to power even when crushed militarily. The book deserves to be read broadly in the academy and among policymakers. Its relevance for U.S. foreign policy is clear as the United States wrangles with several different types of authoritarian governments in China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and elsewhere. Weeks's theory, however, proves an awkward fit for some well-known cases because it insists that leaders in machines are removed only by other civilians, which neglects the possibility that civilian-led regimes could face military audiences. An important case of such a hybrid regime in the book is imperial Japan, where both the army and the navy under the Meiji Constitution could topple the government by having their respective ministers-who, by tradition (and sometimes law), had to be serving or retired military officers-resign. Civilian control of the military in Japan was also nonexistent, as officers on the Asian mainland repeatedly provoked and escalated military conflicts with China and the Soviet Union against the explicit orders of the government in Tokyo. Weeks codes Japan in the 1930s first as a machine and later as a junta, but until 1941, Japan had a civilian-led government facing a military audiencewhich places it outside of her typology. Weeks's argument for the peacefulness of machines thus appears to rest on an unacknowledged assumption of strong civilian control of the military, which is not true of all machines. Civilian-led regimes that face military audiences-such as imperial Japan or Wilhelmine Germany-are probably more bellicose than those that face a civilian audience because the military audience may remove leaders who resist their aggressive plans, or the military is not subject to government control and is able to commit the state to conflict without clear regime approval.
Nuclear deterrence is paradoxical. One paradox of nuclear deterrence we may call the rationality ... more Nuclear deterrence is paradoxical. One paradox of nuclear deterrence we may call the rationality paradox:(RP) (1) While it is a rational policy to threaten nuclear retaliation against an opponent armed with nuclear weapons, it would not be rational to carry out the retaliation should the threat fail to deter; and (2) what would not be rational to do is not, in the circumstances characteristic of nuclear deterrence, rational to threaten to do.This is a paradox in the standard sense that it involves contradictory claims, for it implies that adopting a policy of nuclear deterrence is both rational and not rational, yet we have strong reason to believe that each of the claims is true. Claim (1) is a recognition that, though we believe nuclear deterrence works, there would seem to be no reason to carry out the threat if it were to fail. Claim (2) is part of the logic of all forms of deterrence, military and nonmilitary, and it relates to the important notion of credibility: if an opponen...
Globalization and free trade seem like good ideas. In the economic marketplace, companies and gov... more Globalization and free trade seem like good ideas. In the economic marketplace, companies and governments need to compete on a global scale in order to survive. Are there down-sides to globalization? Steven Lee argues that globalization can lead to loss of self-determination and vulnerability to international economic forces. While the loss of control is mainly economic, Lee points out that it can also be political, legal, and cultural, as well. Also, at least in the short run, the rich nations may get richer and the poor nations poorer. The question then becomes, is globalization still worth it, or should some regions secede economically (pull out of WTO, NAFTA, EU) in order to regain self-control? Lee considers the philosophical bases upon which regions or governments may opt to secede.
... B's military targets rather than against its population centers, then, it is argued, A h... more ... B's military targets rather than against its population centers, then, it is argued, A has no intention to kill innocent persons, and ... Hare, "Credibility and Bluff," in Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity: The Fundamental Questions, ed. Avner Cohen and Steven Lee (Totowa ...
The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly... more The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly short period of time. The debate began less than six years ago when President Reagan initiated the SDI by setting forth a noble moral vision for the role of strategic defenses. The end of the debate has been signaled by the recent news report that the Pentagon is now promoting the SDI for its capacity to destroy Soviet satellites.1 This concludes the moral debate on an unfortunate note. The history of the SDI is a tale of moral decline. Because the debate, if not the program itself, is at an end, this is an appropriate time to reflect on what it has taught us. There are three lessons to be drawn from the moral debate. The first is the somewhat surprising lesson that morality counts in the area of military policy. The second lesson is less surprising. It is that the fundamental moral problem posed by nuclear weapons remains intractable. The third lesson is that, despite claims to the con...
... Given the extreme threat posed by perfect terrorism, it is necessary for the hegemon, in ... ... more ... Given the extreme threat posed by perfect terrorism, it is necessary for the hegemon, in ... suggests that just war theory may have some prob-lems with humanitarian intervention, suggesting that ... but at the same time no basis for denying that preventive intervention is justified. ...
The law of nations may be deduced, fi rst, from the general principles of right and justice appli... more The law of nations may be deduced, fi rst, from the general principles of right and justice applied to the concerns of individuals, and thence to the relations and duties of nations. In the last chapter, we discussed jus ad bellum under the national defense paradigm, according to which only defensive war is justifi ed. Given the priority principle, which is part of this idea of just cause, the fi rst use of force is never justifi ed. 3 This understanding of just cause is different from that during much of the history of the just war tradition. In particular, the just war paradigm, which characterized the tradition through the seventeenth century, did not accept the priority principle, and aggression was not the only wrong that could justify war. In this chapter, we continue our discussion of jus ad bellum by examining whether there is a need to revise our account of just cause in ways more consonant with the just war paradigm. In recent decades, a number of wars have been justifi ed on humanitarian grounds. A humanitarian intervention is a war launched to rescue persons in another state suffering under a grave humanitarian crisis, such as genocide, mass enslavement, starvation, or ethnic cleansing, usually at the hands of their own government. Among the recent interventions Sovereignty and human rights
In the U.S. and other parts of the Western world, liberal democracy is being challenged by populi... more In the U.S. and other parts of the Western world, liberal democracy is being challenged by populism. We see vividly every day the impact that populism is having on democratic practice, but what about its effect on democratic theory? An eruption of populism is a permanent possibility in representative democracies, and this causes serious trouble for two leading types of democratic theory, deliberative democracy and aggregative democracy. If my arguments are correct, we may be left without a normative democracy theory that satisfies basic moral requirements.
Dictators is an excellent book that constitutes a significant leap forward in the study of author... more Dictators is an excellent book that constitutes a significant leap forward in the study of authoritarian regimes and international security. Importantly, the book reveals that not all dictators are alike. In fact, some are not dictators at all but rather face real constraints on their freedom of action. Others, by contrast, resemble the stereotypical despots who attack their neighbors on a whim but cling tenaciously to power even when crushed militarily. The book deserves to be read broadly in the academy and among policymakers. Its relevance for U.S. foreign policy is clear as the United States wrangles with several different types of authoritarian governments in China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and elsewhere. Weeks's theory, however, proves an awkward fit for some well-known cases because it insists that leaders in machines are removed only by other civilians, which neglects the possibility that civilian-led regimes could face military audiences. An important case of such a hybrid regime in the book is imperial Japan, where both the army and the navy under the Meiji Constitution could topple the government by having their respective ministers-who, by tradition (and sometimes law), had to be serving or retired military officers-resign. Civilian control of the military in Japan was also nonexistent, as officers on the Asian mainland repeatedly provoked and escalated military conflicts with China and the Soviet Union against the explicit orders of the government in Tokyo. Weeks codes Japan in the 1930s first as a machine and later as a junta, but until 1941, Japan had a civilian-led government facing a military audiencewhich places it outside of her typology. Weeks's argument for the peacefulness of machines thus appears to rest on an unacknowledged assumption of strong civilian control of the military, which is not true of all machines. Civilian-led regimes that face military audiences-such as imperial Japan or Wilhelmine Germany-are probably more bellicose than those that face a civilian audience because the military audience may remove leaders who resist their aggressive plans, or the military is not subject to government control and is able to commit the state to conflict without clear regime approval.
Nuclear deterrence is paradoxical. One paradox of nuclear deterrence we may call the rationality ... more Nuclear deterrence is paradoxical. One paradox of nuclear deterrence we may call the rationality paradox:(RP) (1) While it is a rational policy to threaten nuclear retaliation against an opponent armed with nuclear weapons, it would not be rational to carry out the retaliation should the threat fail to deter; and (2) what would not be rational to do is not, in the circumstances characteristic of nuclear deterrence, rational to threaten to do.This is a paradox in the standard sense that it involves contradictory claims, for it implies that adopting a policy of nuclear deterrence is both rational and not rational, yet we have strong reason to believe that each of the claims is true. Claim (1) is a recognition that, though we believe nuclear deterrence works, there would seem to be no reason to carry out the threat if it were to fail. Claim (2) is part of the logic of all forms of deterrence, military and nonmilitary, and it relates to the important notion of credibility: if an opponen...
Globalization and free trade seem like good ideas. In the economic marketplace, companies and gov... more Globalization and free trade seem like good ideas. In the economic marketplace, companies and governments need to compete on a global scale in order to survive. Are there down-sides to globalization? Steven Lee argues that globalization can lead to loss of self-determination and vulnerability to international economic forces. While the loss of control is mainly economic, Lee points out that it can also be political, legal, and cultural, as well. Also, at least in the short run, the rich nations may get richer and the poor nations poorer. The question then becomes, is globalization still worth it, or should some regions secede economically (pull out of WTO, NAFTA, EU) in order to regain self-control? Lee considers the philosophical bases upon which regions or governments may opt to secede.
... B's military targets rather than against its population centers, then, it is argued, A h... more ... B's military targets rather than against its population centers, then, it is argued, A has no intention to kill innocent persons, and ... Hare, "Credibility and Bluff," in Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity: The Fundamental Questions, ed. Avner Cohen and Steven Lee (Totowa ...
The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly... more The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly short period of time. The debate began less than six years ago when President Reagan initiated the SDI by setting forth a noble moral vision for the role of strategic defenses. The end of the debate has been signaled by the recent news report that the Pentagon is now promoting the SDI for its capacity to destroy Soviet satellites.1 This concludes the moral debate on an unfortunate note. The history of the SDI is a tale of moral decline. Because the debate, if not the program itself, is at an end, this is an appropriate time to reflect on what it has taught us. There are three lessons to be drawn from the moral debate. The first is the somewhat surprising lesson that morality counts in the area of military policy. The second lesson is less surprising. It is that the fundamental moral problem posed by nuclear weapons remains intractable. The third lesson is that, despite claims to the con...
Uploads
Papers by Steven Lee